PEOPLE v. HILLIE (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gary HILLIE, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 21, 2001

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER and LAWTON, JJ.

Vincent F. Gugino, Buffalo, for defendant-appellant. Joseph Kilbridge, Buffalo, for plaintiff-respondent.

The contention of defendant that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender is unpreserved for our review (see, People v. Perez, 245 A.D.2d 143, 665 N.Y.S.2d 883, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 944, 671 N.Y.S.2d 724, 694 N.E.2d 893; see also, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; People v. James [Adolphus], 159 A.D.2d 723, 553 N.Y.S.2d 1014). In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit.

Defendant contends that he did not controvert the allegations in the predicate felony statement because the People had indicated to defense counsel that they would withdraw their consent to the plea agreement if defendant were not sentenced as a second felony offender. Contrary to defendant's contention, the People are entitled to withdraw their consent to a plea agreement if the defendant is to be sentenced to a lesser sentence than that bargained for (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 307, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network