Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Soto, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1997-12-08
Citations: 245 A.D.2d 398
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Soto, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 398–398

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Soto, Appellant.
[667 NYS2d 756]

Opinion:
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered January 3, 1996, 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.
We disagree with the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at a hearing held to determine the circumstances surrounding his leaving a drug rehabilitation program. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of less than meaningful representation rather than simple disagreement with trial strategies and tactics (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708; People v Benn, 68 NY2d 941, 942; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798). We decline to second-guess defense counsel's decision not to call as a witness the defendant's case manager (see, People v Bryant, 185 AD2d 327).
The court's deferral of sentencing upon the successful completion of the defendant's drug treatment program was not tantamount to illegal interim probation (see, People v Avery, 85 NY2d 503). Therefore, the court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence when he failed to successfully complete the program without offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.