From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Munize

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant's contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The defense counsel informed the sentencing court of the defendant's medical condition and of the defendant's alleged reason for failing to complete the drug treatment program. Under the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant was denied his constitutional right to the meaningful representation of counsel ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).

The court's deferral of sentencing upon the successful completion of the defendant's drug treatment program was not tantamount to illegal interim probation ( see, People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503). Therefore, the court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence when he failed to successfully complete the program ( see, CPL 400.10).

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Munize

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Munize

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL MUNIZE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 320

Citing Cases

People v. Richardson

That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not object to the enhanced sentence…

People v. Pike

In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that he violated a key term of…