People v Chappotin
2008 NY Slip Op 08989 [56 AD3d 327]
November 18, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Andrew Chappotin, Appellant.

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Anastasia Heegerof counsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Andrew Zakrocki of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered September 12,2007, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance inthe third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of six years,unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant's attorney's request foran adjournment in order to permit him to further prepare for sentencing, and that ruling did notdeprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel. Although, as part of his plea agreement,defendant faced an enhanced sentence if he failed to appear for sentencing, he was absent on thesentencing date as well as on a subsequent date after the court had stayed a bench warrant.Several months later, when defendant was involuntarily returned on the warrant for sentencing,his attorney, who had represented him throughout, requested an adjournment in order to exploredefendant's reasons for failing to appear. The court properly concluded that no such adjournmentwas necessary. Defendant and his counsel received suitable opportunities to confer both beforeand after the court denied the adjournment, they both addressed the court prior to sentencing,neither offered anything to excuse or mitigate defendant's violation of the plea conditions, and"there is no reason to believe that counsel could have persuaded the court to impose a morelenient sentence if he had received more time to prepare" (People v Krasnovsky, [*2]45 AD3d 446, 447 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias,Friedman, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.