People v. Valles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Valles

21 A.D.3d 855, 801 N.Y.S.2d 588

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 855 (People v. Valles) 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. Valles, 21 A.D.3d 855, 801 N.Y.S.2d 588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered June 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4Va to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to give defendant a second chance to complete a drug treatment program after he originally absconded, in direct violation of the terms of his agreement and with the express understanding that if he did so he would be sentenced to 4V2 to 9 years. Defendant’s constitutional argument is unpreserved (see People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942, 943 [1988]; People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899 [1986]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim, we would reject it.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered June 22, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4Va to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to give defendant a second chance to complete a drug treatment program after he originally absconded, in direct violation of the terms of his agreement and with the express understanding that if he did so he would be sentenced to 4V2 to 9 years. Defendant’s constitutional argument is unpreserved (see People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942, 943 [1988]; People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899 [1986]), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. Were we to reach this claim, we would reject it.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 855, 801 N.Y.S.2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valles-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack