People v. Hottois

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hottois

244 A.D.2d 971, 668 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12385

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Hottois) 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. Hottois, 244 A.D.2d 971, 668 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Wayne County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the People violated the terms of the plea bargain by recommending at sentencing that defendant receive the maximum rather than the minimum term of imprisonment. Defendant was thereafter sentenced by County Court to the maximum term of imprisonment. Because defendant was denied the benefit of his plea bargain, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to another County Court Judge for resentencing in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Shabazz, 203 AD2d 947; see also, Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 261-263). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J.—Attempted Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Wayne County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the People violated the terms of the plea bargain by recommending at sentencing that defendant receive the maximum rather than the minimum term of imprisonment. Defendant was thereafter sentenced by County Court to the maximum term of imprisonment. Because defendant was denied the benefit of his plea bargain, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to another County Court Judge for resentencing in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Shabazz, 203 AD2d 947; see also, Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 261-263). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J.—Attempted Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 971, 668 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hottois-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack