People v McCorkle

Annotate this Case
People v McCorkle 2009 NY Slip Op 00561 [58 AD3d 871] January 27, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 11, 2009

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Derrick McCorkle, Appellant.

—[*1] Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Erica Horwitz of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), all rendered January 25, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny under indictment No. 5100/01, burglary in the third degree and attempted petit larceny under indictment No. 7942/01, and burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 8512/05, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly refused to dismiss his felony charges in violation of the plea agreements is unpreserved for appellate review, because the defendant did not raise this contention at sentencing and did not move to withdraw his pleas or vacate the judgments on this ground (see People v Rooney, 299 AD2d 565 [2002]).

In any event, contrary to the defendant's contention, he violated the terms of his plea agreements by failing to successfully complete the Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes program, and by being rearrested. Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to specific performance of the plea agreements (id.). [*2]

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Chambers, 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.