In People v. Fiammegta (Ct. App. 2/16/2010) (Read, J.), the defendant pleaded guilty to Burglary 2º and entered the Brooklyn DA's Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program. The People agreed to dismiss the charge if the defendant completed an 18-24 month residential drug treatment program and aftercare. The judge informed the defendant that if he did not complete the program, he would be sentenced to 8 years.
Relevant to the appeal, the defendant was accused by the treatment facility of theft. The defendant denied the allegations and demanded a hearing; the court denied the request, noting that, in any event, the program did not want him back. After an adjournment, defense counsel reported that the facility had changed its mind, determined the defendant had been setup, and was now willing to have him back in the program. The prosecutor countered that DTAP, the statewide program that was overseeing the treatment, did not want him to return. In addition, the prosecutor noted that his office would object to any further attempts at treatment. The case was then adjourned for the court to speak with the director of the program. The court reported that the director had told him that he still believed the defendant was responsible for the theft and the program did not want him return. The court then sentenced the defendant to a prison term.
The Court held that the standard from People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702 (1993), controls the amount of due process required before a defendant may be sentenced for violating the conditions of a drug treatment diversion program. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a full-blown evidentiary hearing—such as the type of hearing required if the People move to revoke a defendant's probation—is required. The court held:
Relevant to the appeal, the defendant was accused by the treatment facility of theft. The defendant denied the allegations and demanded a hearing; the court denied the request, noting that, in any event, the program did not want him back. After an adjournment, defense counsel reported that the facility had changed its mind, determined the defendant had been setup, and was now willing to have him back in the program. The prosecutor countered that DTAP, the statewide program that was overseeing the treatment, did not want him to return. In addition, the prosecutor noted that his office would object to any further attempts at treatment. The case was then adjourned for the court to speak with the director of the program. The court reported that the director had told him that he still believed the defendant was responsible for the theft and the program did not want him return. The court then sentenced the defendant to a prison term.
The Court held that the standard from People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702 (1993), controls the amount of due process required before a defendant may be sentenced for violating the conditions of a drug treatment diversion program. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a full-blown evidentiary hearing—such as the type of hearing required if the People move to revoke a defendant's probation—is required. The court held:
Analogizing to Outley, the condition of a DTAP plea is that the defendant satisfactorily finish a drug treatment program. Accordingly, when a program discharges a defendant for misconduct, the court must carry out an inquiry of sufficient depth to satisfy itself that there was a legitimate basis for the program's decision, and must explain, on the record, the nature of its inquiry, its conclusions, and the basis for them.Here, Supreme Court was not required to hold a hearing. However, "the judge should have considered defendant's argument that he was kicked out of the program based on thin evidence of wrongdoing after inadequate investigation; and he should have allowed defendant to submit letters and testimony or affidavits from his mother and girlfriend about the money they claimed to have sent him." If after sufficient inquiry, the court believed the program did not have a legitimate basis for excluding the defendant and the People were unwilling to consider the defendant for a new program, the court could have offered the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. (LC)
Comments