Opinion
2012-11-16
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenley PECK, Defendant–Appellant.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli of Counsel), for Respondent.
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Susan C. Azzarelli of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
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 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 936 N.Y.S.2d 797). We conclude that, upon remittal, the court conducted a sufficient inquiry pursuant to People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356 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 N.Y.3d 90, 97, 896 N.Y.S.2d 735, 923 N.E.2d 1123;People v. Marshall, 231 A.D.2d 893, 894–895, 647 N.Y.S.2d 890,lv. denied89 N.Y.2d 866, 653 N.Y.S.2d 289, 675 N.E.2d 1242). 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.