People v. Guerra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guerra

291 A.D.2d 410, 736 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1334

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 410 (People v. Guerra) 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. Guerra, 291 A.D.2d 410, 736 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered August 24, 1999, convicting him [411]*411of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As the defendant conceded, he failed to comply with a condition of his plea agreement, i.e., appear at the Probation Department for an interview. Therefore, the sentencing court was no longer bound to impose the sentence it originally promised, and it properly exercised its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence (see, People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489; People v Davis, 239 AD2d 356; People v Fields, 197 AD2d 633). The defendant’s plea allocution transcript indicates that he would be subjected to an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea agreement (see, People v Davis, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), rendered August 24, 1999, convicting him [411]*411of rape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As the defendant conceded, he failed to comply with a condition of his plea agreement, i.e., appear at the Probation Department for an interview. Therefore, the sentencing court was no longer bound to impose the sentence it originally promised, and it properly exercised its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence (see, People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489; People v Davis, 239 AD2d 356; People v Fields, 197 AD2d 633). The defendant’s plea allocution transcript indicates that he would be subjected to an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the conditions of his plea agreement (see, People v Davis, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Cozier and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 410, 736 N.Y.S.2d 901, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guerra-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack