People v Velazquez

Annotate this Case
People v Velazquez 2009 NY Slip Op 08085 [67 AD3d 1124] November 12, 2009 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 6, 2010

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Velazquez, Appellant.

—[*1] G. Scott Walling, Queensbury, for appellant.

Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered October 9, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

The facts of this case are fully set forth in our prior decision in which we granted the application of then appellate counsel to be relieved of his assignment and appointed new counsel to represent defendant on this appeal (60 AD3d 1150 [2009]). We must now address whether the sentence imposed by County Court was harsh and excessive. The record discloses that defendant received a sentence of five years in prison upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and three years in prison upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, to run concurrently, and to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. This was significantly less than the maximum term that could have been imposed and, notably, the plea agreement did not include a commitment by the court with respect to sentencing. In view of this, and given the quantity of heroin confiscated by the police, we find no abuse of discretion nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Rivera, 24 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Kane, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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.