From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Saad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2001
286 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(S.C.I. NO. 2189/97)

Submitted June 27, 2001.

September 24, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Parker, J.), rendered January 22, 1998, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Laura Boyd of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Alyson J. Gill of counsel; Sari Goldberg on the brief), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P. MYRIAM J. ALTMAN LEO F. McGINITY NANCY E. SMITH BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not foreclose review of his contention that he did not violate a condition of his plea (see, People v. Miles, 268 A.D.2d 489). The Supreme Court clearly intended to condition the promised sentence upon the defendant's completion of a drug treatment program. Because the defendant failed to complete the program, the Supreme Court was no longer bound by its promise and was free to impose a harsher sentence (see, People v. Gamble, 111 A.D.2d 869).

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY, SMITH and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Saad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2001
286 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Saad

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. DAWIDA SAAD, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Sep 24, 2001

Citations

286 A.D.2d 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
730 N.Y.S.2d 720

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

His contention that the program was not suitable on the ground he was mentally ill was belatedly raised by…

People v. Stowe

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive…