Opinion
2012-05994, 2012-05995
11-12-2014
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Madi A. GRANT, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray and Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray and Michael J. Miller of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
Opinion Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (IDV Part) (Crecca, J.), both rendered May 10, 2012, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree under Indictment No. 7200–11, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle under Indictment No. 7025–12, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 with respect to the appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 7025–12, in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
With respect to the appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 7200–11, the defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in imposing a sentence greater than that which had been promised without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence or otherwise raise the issue in the Supreme Court (see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 ; People v. Guillen, 37 A.D.3d 493, 829 N.Y.S.2d 197 ; People v. Szyjko, 17 A.D.3d 609, 795 N.Y.S.2d 57 ). In any event, when the defendant failed to comply with the condition of his plea agreement that he appear on the scheduled sentencing date, the court was no longer bound by the original plea agreement, and had the right to impose a greater sentence (see People v. Figgins, 87 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 637 N.Y.S.2d 684, 661 N.E.2d 156 ; People v. Hubbard, 105 A.D.3d 760, 961 N.Y.S.2d 795 ; People v. Marte, 85 A.D.3d 945, 946, 925 N.Y.S.2d 348 ; People v. White, 3 A.D.3d 543, 544, 770 N.Y.S.2d 630 ). Moreover, as the defendant was aware that he faced an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the plea agreement, the enhanced sentence was appropriate (see People v. White, 3 A.D.3d at 544, 770 N.Y.S.2d 630 ; People v.
Delatorre, 306 A.D.2d 419, 420, 760 N.Y.S.2d 870 ; People v. Walters, 273 A.D.2d 418, 710 N.Y.S.2d 919 ).
With respect to the appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 7025–12, we are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on the appeal from that judgment. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 ; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.], 89 A.D.3d 252, 931 N.Y.S.2d 676 ; People v. Paige, 54 A.D.2d 631, 387 N.Y.S.2d 399 ; cf. People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606, 419 N.Y.S.2d 913, 393 N.E.2d 987 ).