From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 1997
237 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

March 31, 1997.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Eidens, J.), rendered June 23, 1995, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Before: Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant's plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings.

Prior to the entry of his plea of guilty, the defendant was advised that the court would consider running the promised sentence of three to six years imprisonment concurrently with a term of imprisonment imposed on him for violation of parole and, "if the court feels that it cannot comply," the defendant would be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea. At sentencing, the court informed the defendant that it did not have the authority to direct that the sentences run concurrently and denied his application to withdraw his plea. Under the circumstances, the defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea ( see, People v Torres, 45 NY2d 751; People v Fuller, 132 AD2d 617).


Summaries of

People v. Lowman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 1997
237 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Lowman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENNETH LOWMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 31, 1997

Citations

237 A.D.2d 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
655 N.Y.S.2d 643

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the plea of…

People v. Latimer

Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the County Court did not fulfill what, as the People…