Opinion
November 27, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 8805/87 is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment under indictment No. 11379/88 is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed thereon from an indeterminate term of 7 to 14 years' imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years' imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment under indictment No. 11379/88 is affirmed.
The court's imposition of a longer sentence on indictment No. 11379/88 was consistent with the plea agreement. The court conditioned the agreement on the defendant's appearance at the originally scheduled sentencing, which condition was violated by the defendant. Under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not a violation of the plea agreement (see, People v Betheny, 147 A.D.2d 488; People v Sharlow, 116 A.D.2d 603, 604). However, we find that the sentence imposed on that indictment was unduly harsh under the circumstances and reduce it, in the interest of justice, to an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years' imprisonment. As previously indicated by the sentencing court, the sentences are to run concurrently. We are satisfied that the reduced sentence is adequate to achieve the legitimate goals of sentencing (see, People v Orr, 138 A.D.2d 416).
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matters dehors the record and may not be raised on direct appeal from the judgments (see, People v Mosca, 131 A.D.2d 704). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.