People v. Powell, 110 A.D.3d 1383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Powell, 110 A.D.3d 1383 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Parson (nyappdiv, 2023-03-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Parson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
"Courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations" ( People v Williams , 105 AD3d 1428, 1428 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]), and here the determination is supported by defendant's "extensive criminal history and threat to public safety" ( People v Powell , 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [3d Dept 2013]; see Carper , 124 AD3d at 1320 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McKoy
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
Significantly, "[c]ourts are accorded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations" ( People v Powell , 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Clarke , 155 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1114 [2018]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Clarke
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Turning to the merits, “under the program created by CPL article 216, whether an eligible defendant will be offered judicial diversion pursuant to that article remains within the trial court’s discretion, and [a] defendant is not automatically entitled to judicial diversion” (People v Meddaugh, 150 AD3d 1545, 1547 [2017]; see CPL 216.05 [4]; People v Driscoll, 147 AD3d 1157, 1159 [2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1078 [2017]; People v Powell, 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013]; People v Buswell, 88 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Meddaugh
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
With regard to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, even if we were to agree with defendant’s contention that her counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to advise her of or request judicial diversion under the program created by CPL article 216, whether an eligible defendant will be offered judicial diversion pursuant to that article remains within the trial court’s discretion, and defendant is not automatically entitled to judicial diversion (see People v Buswell, 88 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2011]; cf. People v Pittman, 140 *1548 AD3d 989, 989 [2016]; People v Powell,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Driscoll
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Further, judicial diversion to drug treatment is discretionary (see People v Powell, 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013]) and, even assuming that he is an “[eligible defendant” (CPL 216.00 [1]), the record does not reflect any basis upon which to believe that the court would have deemed it appropriate in view of defendant’s extensive criminal history (see CPL 216.05 [3] [b] [v]; [4]; People v Pittman, 140 AD3d 989, 989 [2016]; People v Carper, 124 AD3d 1319, 1320 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 949 [2015]; compare People v Cora, 135 AD3d 987, 989 [2016]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carper
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
We note in any event that the court’s decision denying the application is supported by defendant’s “extensive criminal history and threat to public safety” (People v Powell, 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Carper
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
We note in any event that the court’s decision denying the application is supported by defendant’s “extensive criminal history and threat to public safety” (People v Powell, 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Vezequ
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: accord · confidence high
Nonetheless, "[c]ourts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations" ( People v Williams , 105 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]; accord People v Powell , 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013]) and, given the colloquy between the People, defense counsel and County Court, which reflected that defendant had previously been terminated from a judicial diversion program, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of defendant's request.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: accord · confidence high
“Courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations” (People v Williams, 105 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2013] [citations omitted], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]; accord People v Powell, 110 AD3d 1383, 1384 [2013]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Pittman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
“Courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations” (People v Williams, 105 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2013]; see People v Powell, 110 AD3d 1383, 1383 [2013]; People v Buswell, 88 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Alonzo T. Powell
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 31, 2013.
110 A.D.3d 1383
Egan.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Egan Jr., J.

Defendant was charged in two separate indictments with vari[*1384] ous drug-related offenses and, in connection therewith, applied for participation in the judicial diversion program (see CPL art 216). After considering the submissions tendered by defendant and the People, County Court denied defendant’s application. Thereafter, in full satisfaction of both indictments, as well as a probation violation, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and, further, admitted violating the terms of his probation. Defendant then was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to the agreed-upon aggregate prison term of 44/2 years followed by three years of postrelease supervision. This appeal by defendant ensued.

Defendant’s sole argument upon appeal is that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for participation in the judicial diversion program. To the extent that defendant did not abandon this issue by failing to request a hearing in this regard (see CPL 216.05 [3] [a]), we nonetheless find defendant’s argument to be lacking in merit. “Courts are afforded great deference in making judicial diversion determinations” (People v Williams, 105 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013] [citations omitted]; see People v Buswell, 88 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2011]; see also Matter of Carty v Hall, 92 AD3d 1191, 1192 [2012]). Inasmuch as the record before us reflects that County Court denied defendant’s application based upon his extensive criminal history and threat to public safety, we discern no abuse of discretion here (see People v Williams, 105 AD3d at 1428). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Stein, J.P., McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.