PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig S. Brown, J.), rendered May 15, 2023, convicting her of promoting prostitution in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In January 2023, the defendant pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution in the third degree (Penal Law § 230.25[2]) in exchange for a promised sentence.  As a condition of the plea, the County Court required the defendant to cooperate fully with the Department of Probation in connection with its preparation of the presentence report and to truthfully answer the questions posed by the Department of Probation.  The court advised the defendant that, if she failed to honor the terms of the plea agreement, she could be subject to an enhanced sentence.  Thereafter, based on statements made by the defendant during her interview with the Department of Probation, the court determined that the defendant violated the terms of her plea agreement and imposed an enhanced sentence.  The defendant appeals.

“ ‘Conditions imposed as part of a plea arrangement are valid if the parties agree to them and they do not violate any statute or contravene public policy’ ” (People v. Takie, 172 A.D.3d 1249, 1250, 101 N.Y.S.3d 141, quoting People v. Avery, 85 N.Y.2d 503, 507, 626 N.Y.S.2d 726, 650 N.E.2d 384).  “A court is free to impose a condition as part of a plea arrangement requiring that a defendant cooperate with the Department of Probation ․ by, among other things, truthfully answering questions and not denying guilt during a probation department interview” (People v. Ramirez, 175 A.D.3d 569, 570, 104 N.Y.S.3d 897).  “The violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence” (People v. Volpe, 226 A.D.3d 708, 709, 208 N.Y.S.3d 296 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).  “Due process ․ requires that, before imposing an enhanced sentence, the court conduct an inquiry sufficient for it to determine that the defendant indeed violated the plea condition” (People v. Guzman–Hernandez, 135 A.D.3d 957, 957, 23 N.Y.S.3d 582;  see People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d 714, 715, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances of this case, the County Court's inquiry was sufficient to determine that the defendant had violated a condition of her plea agreement (see People v. Durkin, 214 A.D.3d 741, 742, 183 N.Y.S.3d 319;  People v. Shealy, 195 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 146 N.Y.S.3d 797).

Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing the enhanced sentence (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not move to withdraw her plea or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2]).  In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v. Valencia, 3 N.Y.3d at 715, 786 N.Y.S.2d 374, 819 N.E.2d 990;  People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 702, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356).

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.