Opinion
June 25, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court improperly imposed a greater sentence than that which had been promised was not preserved for appellate review as she neither objected to the sentence as violative of the sentence commitment nor moved to vacate her plea (see, People v. Moore, 155 A.D.2d 696; People v Ifill, 108 A.D.2d 202). In any event, a review of the record discloses that the original plea agreement was modified, with the consent and knowledge of the defendant and the prosecutor, at a subsequent hearing on the defendant's application to be released on her own recognizance pending sentence, in order to enable her to visit her gravely ill sister and to begin a drug rehabilitation program. Bail had been previously set at $10,000. In determining the application, the court properly considered, pursuant to CPL 510.30 (2) (a), alternative "kind[s] and degree[s] of control or restriction" that were necessary to secure the defendant's attendance at sentence. To accomplish this purpose, the court clearly conditioned the promised sentence, inter alia, upon the defendant's appearance on the date scheduled for sentencing and upon her cooperation with a T.A.S.C. (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime) caseworker, including her enrollment and attendance in a drug rehabilitation program. The defendant acknowledged that she understood that if she did not comply with these conditions, the court would impose a harsher sentence than that promised in consideration of her plea of guilty. Thereafter, the defendant failed to fulfill either condition and she was arrested on a bench warrant. The proffered explanation for her noncompliance was incredible, unsubstantiated and insufficient. Accordingly, the court was free to impose a more severe sentence, which was not excessive (see, People v. Moore, supra; People v. Caridi, 148 A.D.2d 625; People v. Betheny, 147 A.D.2d 488; People v. Raife, 146 A.D.2d 652; cf., People v. Rosenberg, 148 A.D.2d 346; People v Clarke, 145 A.D.2d 565; People v. Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709; see also, Innes v. Dalsheim, 864 F.2d 974). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.