Opinion
02-21-2024
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Barshawn FORD, appellant.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY (Richard E. Mischel of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Christopher Blira–Koessler, and Alexander Vidal of counsel), for respondent
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York, NY (Richard E. Mischel of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Christopher Blira–Koessler, and Alexander Vidal of counsel), for respondent
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), both rendered September 14, 2022, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under Indictment No. 2149/17, and assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 1258/21, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
[1, 2] Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of due process by the Supreme Court’s failure to hold an Outley hearing prior to imposing enhanced sentences (see People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356). "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. Murdock, 175 A.D.3d 1560, 1561, 109 N.Y.S.3d 358; see People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d at 713, 594 N.Y.S.2d 683, 610 N.E.2d 356). Here, the court’s inquiry was sufficient to determine whether the defendant had violated the terms of the plea agreement (see People v. Moore, 210 A.D.3d 1111, 1112, 178 N.Y.S.3d 784).
[3] Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly relied on the subsequent indictment, which provided assurance that there was a legitimate basis for the new charges against the defendant (see People v. Bracy, 131 A.D.3d 538, 539, 15 N.Y.S.3d 397; People v. Ricketts, 27 A.D.3d 488, 811 N.Y.S.2d 103), and which was further supported by the video footage of the defendant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, this evidence of his postplea criminal conduct provided a legitimate basis for the enhancement of the sentences, even though his incarceration on other charges obviated the need to physically arrest and detain him (see People v. Woods, 150 A.D.3d 1560, 55 N.Y.S.3d 780).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing enhanced sentences.
CONNOLLY, J.P., MALTESE, CHRISTOPHER and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.