People v. Huertas
This text of 650 N.E.2d 408 (People v. Huertas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The alleged agreement between defendant and the prosecutor was never placed on the record or approved by the County Court Judge. Accordingly, defendant cannot now insist that the courts recognize or enforce it (see, People v Curdgel, 83 NY2d 862, 864; People v Danny G., 61 NY2d 169). Since his codefendant pleaded guilty before trial, it cannot be said that the People obtained any concrete benefit from defendant’s agreement to testify against that individual. Defense counsel’s claim that defendant’s agreement to testify may have induced the codefendant to plead guilty is too speculative to warrant granting defendant the relief he seeks.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
650 N.E.2d 408, 85 N.Y.2d 898, 626 N.Y.S.2d 750, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huertas-ny-1995.