From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Haniff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 2, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).


Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

During the defendant's plea allocution, the court advised him that if he failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing, or if he was rearrested, he would face an enhanced sentence of up to two and one-third to seven years imprisonment. Since the defendant failed to comply with these conditions, the court was no longer bound by its original promise to impose a definite sentence of one year, and had the right to impose a greater sentence (see, People v. Bocceo, 213 A.D.2d 278; People v Wallace, 210 A.D.2d 359). Furthermore, because the promise of an increased sentence was part of the original plea agreement, the defendant has no cause to complain that the sentence imposed is excessive (see, People v. Wallace, supra; People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816), and we decline to reduce it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Balletta, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Haniff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1995
220 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Haniff

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RONALD HANIFF…

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 20

Citing Cases

People v. Winship

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence. During the plea…

People v. Rosado

The defendant's claim that he was not competent at the time of his pleas is not supported by the record (…