People v. Henriquez

188 A.D.2d 617, 591 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14451
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 617 (People v. Henriquez) 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. Henriquez, 188 A.D.2d 617, 591 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered December 13, 1990, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the defendant’s conviction to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As part of a negotiated plea agreement, it was agreed that the defendant would plead guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and receive a sentence of eight years to life imprisonment. At the plea proceeding, the parties were under the mistaken impression that this crime is a class A-II felony when in fact it is a class A-I felony (see, Penal Law §§ 220.43, 110.05 [1]). The promised sentence was imposed and constituted an illegally-low term of imprisonment for a class A-I felony (see, Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [i]). Under the circumstances, the judgment should be modified, in the interests of justice, by reducing the conviction to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 220.41) in order to effectuate the clear purpose and intent of the plea agreement (see, People v [618]*618Laino, 186 AD2d 226; People v Brown, 147 AD2d 489; cf., People v Alvarez, 166 AD2d 603). Since the sentence imposed upon the defendant’s plea was the sentence promised, no purpose would be served by remitting the matter for resentencing (see, People v Laino, supra; People v Brown, supra). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Labode
280 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Cook
207 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Henriquez
207 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Dacosta
197 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
People v. Carter
196 A.D.2d 633 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A.D.2d 617, 591 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henriquez-nyappdiv-1992.