THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. TRENT GOODRICH DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2025)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). We affirm.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in enhancing his sentence without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea and without conducting a sufficient inquiry into his alleged violations of the conditions of the plea agreement. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's challenges to the imposition of the enhanced sentence are preserved for our review (see People v Jackson, 34 AD3d 1318, 1318 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 923 [2007]; see generally People v Albergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]), we conclude that they lack merit. The record establishes that defendant “ ‘was clearly informed of the consequences of his failure’ to abide by the conditions of his plea agreement” (People v Scott, 101 AD3d 1773, 1774 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; see People v Coker, 133 AD3d 1218, 1218 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 995 [2016]). Thus, upon defendant's violations of the conditions of the agreement, the court was “no longer bound by the agreement and [was] free to impose a greater sentence without offering ․ defendant an opportunity to withdraw his ․ plea” (Scott, 101 AD3d at 1774 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Faso, 82 AD3d 1584, 1584 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 816 [2011], reconsideration denied 17 NY3d 952 [2011]; People v Parsons, 210 AD2d 901, 901-902 [4th Dept 1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 941 [1995]). Furthermore, inasmuch as defendant “neither raised an issue ‘concerning the validity of the postplea charge[s]’ nor denied ‘any involvement in the underlying crime[s]’ ” or in the commission of other violations of the conditions of the plea agreement, and defense counsel even conceded that the court was entitled to impose an enhanced sentence due to defendant's violations, we conclude that the court had no duty to conduct a further inquiry (People v Harris, 197 AD2d 930, 930 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 850 [1993], quoting People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; see People v Nowlin, 145 AD3d 1447, 1448 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1035 [2017]; People v Anderson, 99 AD3d 1239, 1239-1240 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1059 [2013]). In any event, the record establishes that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry inasmuch as “[b]oth defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to refute the ․ assertions that defendant had violated the plea terms” (Albergotti, 17 NY3d at 750; see People v Sims, 41 NY3d 995, 996 [2024]; People v Scott, 200 AD3d 1729, 1730 [4th Dept 2021]).

Finally, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: November 21, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court