People v. Cook

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Ruiz

    309 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 3 times

    The transcript of the minutes of the proceedings at which the defendant entered his plea of guilty does not indicate that the defendant was told, nor can it be implied therefrom, that he understood that if he failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing or was arrested for a subsequent offense, the sentencing court could impose a harsher sentence than the indeterminate 3 1/3 to 10 year sentence promised to him in consideration of his guilty plea. Even though the defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was subsequently arrested in another state, the sentencing court could not impose a sentence greater than the one bargained for without first affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea and stand trial ( see People v. Arbil C., 190 A.D.2d 856; People v. White, 144 A.D.2d 711; People v. Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503; People v. Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709). Since the indictment under which the prosecution arose is now more than 12 years old, it would prejudice the People to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea and go to trial. Accordingly, the sentence should be reduced to conform with the plea agreement, as requested in the defendant's brief on appeal ( seePeople v. White, supra).

  2. People v. Arbil

    190 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

    The transcript of the minutes of the defendant's plea of guilty does not indicate that the defendant was told, nor can it be implied therefrom, that if he were subsequently arrested or failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing, the court could impose a harsher sentence than the six months imprisonment to run concurrent with, and as a condition of, five years probation promised to him in consideration of his guilty plea. Thus, even though the defendant was subsequently arrested and failed to appear for sentencing, the sentencing court could not impose a sentence greater than that bargained for without first affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea and stand trial (see, People v White, 144 A.D.2d 711; People v Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503). We note that the defendant waived his right to appellate review of any ensuing judgment when he pleaded guilty. Because the court did not advise the defendant at the time he pleaded guilty that he faced an enhanced sentence under certain conditions, the defendant's waiver of appellate review on that ground was not knowingly or intelligently made.

  3. People v. Michael

    190 A.D.2d 758 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith. The transcript of the minutes of the guilty plea proceeding does not indicate, nor can it be implied therefrom, that the defendant was told that if he was subsequently arrested or failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing the court could impose a harsher sentence than the one to three years imprisonment which the court promised was "[t]he worst you are looking at" in consideration of his plea of guilty. Thus, even though the defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was subsequently arrested, the sentencing court could not impose a sentence greater than that bargained for without first affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea and to stand trial (see, People v White, 144 A.D.2d 711; People v Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to afford it the opportunity to either impose the promised sentence or permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Caridi

    148 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 14 times

    The record indicates the clear intent of the court to condition the promised sentence upon the defendant not becoming involved in any further "trouble" of a criminal nature between the time of the plea proceeding and his appearance at the scheduled sentencing date. The defendant, who had extensive prior experience in the criminal justice system, manifested his acceptance of these terms. In view of the defendant's arrest and indictment for criminal offenses committed after the plea proceedings and prior to the scheduled sentencing date, the court was no longer bound by its promise and was free to impose a higher sentence (see, People v. Gamble, 111 A.D.2d 869; People v Innes, 111 A.D.2d 356; cf., People v. White, 144 A.D.2d 711; People v. Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

  5. People v. Clarke

    145 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    An examination of the minutes of the plea allocution proceeding makes clear that the defendant was never informed, nor can it reasonably be concluded that he understood, that if he failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing, the court could impose a harsher sentence than that promised in consideration of his guilty plea. Thus, the defendant should have been permitted either to withdraw his plea of guilty or to accept the imposition of a greater sentence than that originally negotiated (see, People v Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503; cf., People v Gamble, 111 A.D.2d 869). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Kunzeman, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

  6. People v. White

    144 A.D.2d 711 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 19 times

    The transcript of the minutes of the proceedings at which the defendant entered his guilty pleas do not indicate that the defendant was told, nor can it be implied therefrom that he understood, that if he failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing or was arrested for a subsequent offense, the court could impose a harsher sentence than the concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment promised to him in consideration of his guilty pleas. Even though the defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was subsequently arrested for a misdemeanor, the sentencing court could not impose sentences greater than the ones bargained for without first affording defendant an opportunity to withdraw the pleas and stand trial (see, People v. Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503; People v. Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709). Since the indictments under which the prosecutions arose are now more than four years old, it would prejudice the People to allow the defendant to withdraw his pleas and go to trial. Accordingly, the sentence imposed under indictment No. 4380/84 should be reduced to conform with the plea agreement, as requested in the defendant's brief on appeal (People v Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709, supra).