| People v Pittman |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04736 [140 AD3d 989] |
| June 15, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jarmond Pittman, Appellant. |
Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Steven Levine of counsel), forappellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Forman, J.), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree, class B felonies, after he was arrested for possessingapproximately 50 bags of crack cocaine. Following the denial, after a hearing, of hisapplication for participation in a judicial diversion program (hereinafter JDP) (seeCPL 216.05), the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, specificallypreserving his right to appeal the denial of his application to participate in a JDP. He wasthereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of imprisonmentof six years to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision.
The defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the County Court erred in denyinghis application to participate in a JDP. "Courts are afforded great deference in makingjudicial diversion determinations" (People v Williams, 105 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2013]; see People v Powell, 110AD3d 1383, 1383 [2013]; People v Buswell, 88 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2011]). The courtconsidered the appropriate statutory factors in making its determination (see CPL216.05 [3] [b]; see generallyPeople v DeYoung, 95 AD3d 71 [2012]), and found that the defendant's allegedhistory of alcohol and substance abuse was not a contributing factor to his criminalbehavior and that he was a threat to public safety. Upon our review of the record, we findthat the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's applicationto participate in a JDP (see People v Powell, 110 AD3d at 1383; People vWilliams, 105 AD3d at 1428). Chambers, J.P., Dickerson, Hinds-Radix andConnolly, JJ., concur.