People v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clarke

211 A.D.2d 807, 621 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 737

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 30, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 807 (People v. Clarke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Clarke, 211 A.D.2d 807, 621 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from (1) a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), imposed November 19, 1993, under Indictment No. 12129/92, (2) an amended sentence of the same court, also imposed November 19, 1993, under Superior Court Information No. 10517/90, and (3) an amended sentence of the same court, also imposed November 19, 1993, under Indictment No. 10250/91.

Ordered that the sentence imposed under Indictment No. 12129/92 and the amended sentence imposed under Superior Court Information No. 10517/90 are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended sentence imposed under Indictment No. 10250/91 is vacated, on the law.

The People concede that the amended sentence imposed under Indictment No. 10250/91 must be vacated because the defendant did not plead guilty to a violation of probation in connection with that indictment, and, therefore, there was no basis for amendment of the sentence originally imposed.

With respect to the enhanced sentences imposed under [808]*808Indictment No. 12129/92 and Superior Court Information No. 10517/90, as a result of the defendant’s failure to appear for the scheduled sentencing date, we find that the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal should not be enforced since the waiver was conditioned on the premise that the sentences which would ultimately be imposed would be the . promised sentences (see, People v Prescott, 196 AD2d 599).

We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence and amended sentence imposed under Indictment No. 12129/92 and Superior Court Information No. 10517/90, respectively, are excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant failed to comply with a condition of his plea agreement. Therefore, the court was not bound by its original sentencing promise and was free to impose enhanced sentences (see, People v Thorpe, 189 AD2d 903; People v Johnson, 177 AD2d 651). The enhanced sentences imposed were less than the maximum sentences and were not excessive. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from (1) a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), imposed November 19, 1993, under Indictment No. 12129/92, (2) an amended sentence of the same court, also imposed November 19, 1993, under Superior Court Information No. 10517/90, and (3) an amended sentence of the same court, also imposed November 19, 1993, under Indictment No. 10250/91.

Ordered that the sentence imposed under Indictment No. 12129/92 and the amended sentence imposed under Superior Court Information No. 10517/90 are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended sentence imposed under Indictment No. 10250/91 is vacated, on the law.

The People concede that the amended sentence imposed under Indictment No. 10250/91 must be vacated because the defendant did not plead guilty to a violation of probation in connection with that indictment, and, therefore, there was no basis for amendment of the sentence originally imposed.

With respect to the enhanced sentences imposed under [808]*808Indictment No. 12129/92 and Superior Court Information No. 10517/90, as a result of the defendant’s failure to appear for the scheduled sentencing date, we find that the defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal should not be enforced since the waiver was conditioned on the premise that the sentences which would ultimately be imposed would be the . promised sentences (see, People v Prescott, 196 AD2d 599).

We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence and amended sentence imposed under Indictment No. 12129/92 and Superior Court Information No. 10517/90, respectively, are excessive and find it to be without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant failed to comply with a condition of his plea agreement. Therefore, the court was not bound by its original sentencing promise and was free to impose enhanced sentences (see, People v Thorpe, 189 AD2d 903; People v Johnson, 177 AD2d 651). The enhanced sentences imposed were less than the maximum sentences and were not excessive. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 807, 621 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clarke-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack