People v. Stephens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stephens

108 A.D.3d 414, 967 N.Y.S.2d 731

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 2, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.3d 414 (People v. Stephens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Stephens, 108 A.D.3d 414, 967 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered October 14, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly imposed sentence without sufficient inquiry into the circumstances surrounding defendant’s departure from a diversion program is unpreserved because he neither requested further inquiry nor moved to withdraw his plea (see e.g. People v Malaj, 69 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 776 [2010]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant’s violation of the terms of the plea agreement was properly based upon a reliable letter from the program’s intake director and defendant’s own account of the events (People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 98 [2010]; People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714 [2004]; People v Redwood, 41 AD3d 275 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 880 [2007]). Accordingly, the court properly found that defendant had violated his plea agreement by absconding from the program and had thus forfeited the opportunity for a more lenient disposition.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered October 14, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of three years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly imposed sentence without sufficient inquiry into the circumstances surrounding defendant’s departure from a diversion program is unpreserved because he neither requested further inquiry nor moved to withdraw his plea (see e.g. People v Malaj, 69 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 776 [2010]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant’s violation of the terms of the plea agreement was properly based upon a reliable letter from the program’s intake director and defendant’s own account of the events (People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 98 [2010]; People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714 [2004]; People v Redwood, 41 AD3d 275 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 880 [2007]). Accordingly, the court properly found that defendant had violated his plea agreement by absconding from the program and had thus forfeited the opportunity for a more lenient disposition.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.3d 414, 967 N.Y.S.2d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stephens-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack