People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 26 April 2013 |
| Citation | 963 N.Y.S.2d 899,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 02926,105 A.D.3d 1428 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric P. WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered January 3, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Shirley A. Gorman, Brockport, for Defendant–Appellant.
Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.16[1] ). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in refusing to order judicial diversion instead of incarceration. The court considered the statutory factors pursuant to CPL 216.05(3)(b) in making its determination, including whether defendant was eligible for diversion, whether he had a history of drug abuse, whether such abuse was a contributing factor to his criminal behavior, whether diversion could effectively address such abuse, and whether institutional confinement of defendant was necessary for the protection of the public. Courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations, and we perceive no abuse of discretion here ( see Matter of Carty v. Hall, 92 A.D.3d 1191, 1192, 939 N.Y.S.2d 609;see generally People v. Secore, 102 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 958 N.Y.S.2d 538;People v. Dawley, 96 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 945 N.Y.S.2d 496,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1025, 953 N.Y.S.2d 558, 978 N.E.2d 110;People v. Hombach, 31 Misc.3d 789, 792, 919 N.Y.S.2d 791). To the extent that defendant's contention that he was denied effectiveassistance of counsel survives his guilty plea ( see People v. Hawkins, 94 A.D.3d 1439, 1440–1441, 942 N.Y.S.2d 300,lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766), we conclude that his contention lacks merit ( see generally People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265). We note that, although defense counsel's request that defendant be evaluated pursuant to CPL 216.05 was improperly made after defendantentered his plea of guilty, the court ignored that procedural error and reached the judicial diversion issue on the merits. We further conclude that the sentence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hines
...great deference in making judicial diversion determinations,” and here the court did not abuse its discretion (People v. Williams, 105 A.D.3d 1428, 1428, 963 N.Y.S.2d 899, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1021, 971 N.Y.S.2d 503, 994 N.E.2d 399 ). We also reject defendant's contention that he is entitle......
-
Harris v. Nassau Cnty.
...the court notes that New York courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations. People v. Williams, 963 N.Y.S.2d 899 (App. Div. 2013). Even if Plaintiff had met the criteria set forth in NYCPL § 216.05, the state court still would have had discretion to deny h......
-
People v. Vezequ
...[2017] ). Nonetheless, "[c]ourts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations" ( People v. Williams, 105 A.D.3d 1428, 1428, 963 N.Y.S.2d 899 [2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 1021, 971 N.Y.S.2d 503, 994 N.E.2d 399 [2013] ; accord People v. Powell, 110 A.D.3d 1383, 1384......
-
People v. Attaway
...which he plead guilty to. "Courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations" ( People v. Williams, 105 A.D.3d 1428, 963 N.Y.S.2d 899 (4th Dept.2013), lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1021, 971 N.Y.S.2d 503, 994 N.E.2d 399 (2013) ). It is within their discretion to deny ju......