People v. Szyjko

17 A.D.3d 609, 795 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4125
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 18, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 609 (People v. Szyjko) 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. Szyjko, 17 A.D.3d 609, 795 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[610]*610Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered November 6, 2003, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without first affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review as he failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate his conviction on this ground (see People v Monte, 242 AD2d 591, 592 [1997]; People v Peoples, 188 AD2d 559 [1992]). In any event, at the time of his plea, the defendant was specifically advised that if he was re-arrested before the date of sentencing, or if he failed to return on that date, the court would not be bound by the sentence promised. The defendant failed to comply with these conditions of the plea agreement as he was re-arrested before the date of sentencing and failed to appear on the date set for sentencing. Accordingly, the court was not bound by its original sentencing promise and properly imposed an enhanced sentence without first affording the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see People v Monte, supra; People v Peoples, supra; People v Montrevil, 176 AD2d 274 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Guichard
2021 NY Slip Op 02822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Russo
133 A.D.3d 895 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Grant
122 A.D.3d 767 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Guillen
37 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Clarke
31 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Purnell
22 A.D.3d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Maldonado
21 A.D.3d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A.D.3d 609, 795 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-szyjko-nyappdiv-2005.