People v. Tapia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tapia

100 A.D.3d 418, 952 N.Y.S.2d 889

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 418 (People v. Tapia) 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. Tapia, 100 A.D.3d 418, 952 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered March 29, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). As an alternative holding (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]), we reject defendant’s claims on the merits. The record supports the court’s imposition of an enhanced sentence based on defendant’s failure to complete drug treatment (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90 [2010]), and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), rendered March 29, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733 [1998]). As an alternative holding (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 285 [1992]), we reject defendant’s claims on the merits. The record supports the court’s imposition of an enhanced sentence based on defendant’s failure to complete drug treatment (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90 [2010]), and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 418, 952 N.Y.S.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tapia-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack