From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-03780

Submitted September 5, 2003.

October 14, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered March 14, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel; Lynsey Johnson on the brief), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he violated the terms of his plea agreement by failing to successfully complete a residential drug treatment program at Odyssey House, and by subsequently being arrested for criminal possession of a controlled substance while still under the supervision of the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime Program. Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement (see People v. Rooney, 299 A.D.2d 565, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 542; People v. Owens, 294 A.D.2d 603).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 14, 2003
309 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. King

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JEFFREY KING, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 820 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
765 N.Y.S.2d 526

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. Pullin

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err…