People v Adonis Henry

Annotate this Case
People v Henry 2006 NY Slip Op 03917 [29 AD3d 820] May 16, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, July 19, 2006

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Adonis Henry, Appellant.

—[*1]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.), rendered May 12, 2004, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

While on probation for two drug-related felonies, the defendant was arrested and indicted for selling heroin to an undercover officer within 1,000 feet of a school. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. The court promised that if he successfully completed a DTAP program (Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program), the plea would be vacated and the indictment would be dismissed. The court warned, however, that if he failed to complete the program, he would face a sentence of 4½ to 9 years' imprisonment as a second felony offender. The defendant was fully allocuted and, upon his admission, was adjudicated a second felony offender. He was subsequently discharged from one residential drug treatment program for noncompliance, and left a second residential program without permission and against clinical advice. He was thereafter arrested for another drug sale. The court sentenced him to a term of 4½ to 9 years' imprisonment.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal from the sentence imposed [*2]was ineffective (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 548 [2004]; People v Williams, 258 AD2d 544 [1999]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, however, the sentence was neither unconstitutional nor excessive (see People v Moore, 261 AD2d 421 [1999]; People v James, 251 AD2d 208 [1998]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.