People v. Rooks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rooks

262 A.D.2d 1073, 691 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7331

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 1073 (People v. Rooks) 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. Rooks, 262 A.D.2d 1073, 691 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose the sentence promised at the time of defendant’s guilty plea. “County Court sufficiently demonstrated in the record that proper sentencing criteria counseled imposition of a different sanction than that agreed to originally” (People v Schultz, 73 NY2d 757, 758). Defendant did not change his position in reliance upon the plea bargain, and defendant was given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. We reject the contention that defendant was entitled to specific performance of the plea bargain because the prosecutor threatened to seek a superseding indictment if defendant withdrew his guilty plea. We conclude that, given defendant’s extensive criminal record, the sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J. — Attempted Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in failing to impose the sentence promised at the time of defendant’s guilty plea. “County Court sufficiently demonstrated in the record that proper sentencing criteria counseled imposition of a different sanction than that agreed to originally” (People v Schultz, 73 NY2d 757, 758). Defendant did not change his position in reliance upon the plea bargain, and defendant was given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. We reject the contention that defendant was entitled to specific performance of the plea bargain because the prosecutor threatened to seek a superseding indictment if defendant withdrew his guilty plea. We conclude that, given defendant’s extensive criminal record, the sentence imposed is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Sirkin, J. — Attempted Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 1073, 691 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rooks-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack