PEOPLE v. PECK (2012)

The PEOPLE Of the State Of New York, Respondent, v. Kenley PECK, Defendant–Appellant.

Decided: November 16, 2012

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

Frank H. HiscockLegal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild Of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli Of Counsel), for Respondent.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). This Court previously held the case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to County Court “to conduct an inquiry to determine whether there was a legitimate basis for defendant's termination from the drug treatment program, including whether defendant's postplea arrests were without foundation” (People v. Peck, 90 AD3d 1500, 1501). We conclude that, upon remittal, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v. Outley (80 N.Y.2d 702, 713) to satisfy itself that defendant's postplea arrest in Camillus, New York had a legitimate basis and thus constituted a violation of the conditions of the drug treatment program and the plea agreement (see People v. Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97; People v. Marshall, 231 A.D.2d 893, 894–895, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 866). Inasmuch as we conclude that defendant's arrest in Camillus justified his removal from the drug treatment program, we need not address defendant's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network