DIDN’T SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH HER PLEA AGREEMENT
After she was convicted of “burglary in the third degree,” and sentenced as a second felony drug offender, to 2-to-4-year term, TH appealed.
On its review of the record, while TH hadn’t properly preserved the argument that she had substantially complied with her plea agreement, the Appellate Division, First Department, was of the view that her claim wasn’t supported by the record.
Among other things, because she failed to complete her required out-patient treatment, failed to report to court as required, “relapsed on drugs numerous times,” and was “rearrested for assaulting an emergency medical technician” who was attempting to assist her … the AD1 thought that sentence was “properly imposed.”
It also thought her argument that her sentence was “cruel and unusual punishment” was "academic" because she had completed her sentence, and, in any event, those contentions were characterized as “unpreserved and unavailing."
Seems like the whole appeal was unavailing, no?
# # #
DECISION