People v. Wade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wade

51 A.D.3d 601, 857 N.Y.S.2d 492

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

DecidedMay 29, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 601 (People v. Wade) 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. Wade, 51 A.D.3d 601, 857 N.Y.S.2d 492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, J, at plea; Laura Ward, J, at sentence), rendered June 5, 2006, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 years and 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In light of defendant’s background, which included absconding from a drug program, the sentencing court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s request to enter a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse treatment program (see Penal Law § 60.04 [6]). We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, J, at plea; Laura Ward, J, at sentence), rendered June 5, 2006, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 4 1/2 years and 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

In light of defendant’s background, which included absconding from a drug program, the sentencing court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s request to enter a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse treatment program (see Penal Law § 60.04 [6]). We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 601, 857 N.Y.S.2d 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wade-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack