Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ricardo MARRERO, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Minardo, J.), rendered May 28, 1997, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of four and one-half to nine years imprisonment.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence from an indeterminate term of four and one-half to nine years imprisonment to one of three to six years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
At his plea, the defendant was promised a sentence of three to six years imprisonment, and was then released on his own recognizance pending sentence. Thereafter, the People received information that the defendant intended to flee, and he was returned on a bench warrant and appeared for sentencing on the scheduled sentencing date. Upon finding that there was evidence that the defendant had intended to flee, the Supreme Court imposed an enhanced sentence of four and one-half to nine years imprisonment, without giving the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
We reject the defendant's contention that the plea agreement was not conditioned upon his returning for sentencing. The condition to return for sentencing can be fairly implied from the court's promise (cf., People v. Moreno, 196 A.D.2d 850, 602 N.Y.S.2d 28; People v. White, 144 A.D.2d 711, 535 N.Y.S.2d 72). However, without deciding the issue of whether the defendant's mere intent to breach a plea agreement is a sufficient reason for the court to impose an enhanced sentence, we find that the evidence that the defendant intended to flee was inadequate. Thus, the defendant is entitled to his original bargain (see, People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784, cert. denied sub nom. Selikoff v. New York, 419 U.S. 1122, 95 S.Ct. 806, 42 L.Ed.2d 822; People v. McKinney, 215 A.D.2d 407, 625 N.Y.S.2d 667; People v. Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709, 481 N.Y.S.2d 148).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 04, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)