People v Anonymous
2009 NY Slip Op 01005 [59 AD3d 215]
February 10, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 1, 2009


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

[*1]Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Avi Springer ofcounsel), for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (David P. Stromes of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered June 12,2007, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance inthe third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 4½ to 9years, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of whether defendant's waiver of the right to appeal forecloses review of theissues she now raises, we find no basis for reversal. Defendant's claim that she did not receivethe hearing to which she was entitled is not preserved for our review and we decline to review itin the interest of justice. As an alternate ground, we reject it as meritless. After a suitable inquiryinto whether defendant violated the conditions of her plea, and after according her a fullopportunity to be heard, the court lawfully sentenced defendant in accordance with her pleaagreement without holding an evidentiary hearing (see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714 [2004]; People vOutley, 80 NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). After entering into a plea agreement, defendant wasreleased to a drug treatment facility on her own recognizance. She thereafter left the facility andthe state, and was involuntarily returned a year later on a bench warrant. This conduct, which,she admitted, violated the express terms of her plea agreement, disqualified her from receivingthe lenient alternative disposition she had been promised if she satisfied all the relevantconditions (see e.g. People vJackson, 44 AD3d 301 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Defendantreceived a reasonable opportunity to present her explanation that she absconded as a result ofbeing threatened. Since she admitted that she acted unilaterally, without contacting the court, herattorney or law enforcement authorities about the alleged threats, she did not establish anyjustification for violating her plea agreement (cf. People v Smith, 309 AD2d 599[2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 601 [2004] [unreported "safety concerns" did not justifyunilateral withdrawal from drug program]).

Accordingly, there was no factual issuewarranting the taking of testimony. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, McGuire, Moskowitz andFreedman, 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.