Opinion
2017–10693 Ind. No. 2455/16
08-21-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Manuel RAMIREZ, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo and Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo and Guy Arcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SHERI S. ROMAN, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Barbara Kahn, J.), rendered August 31, 2017, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. A court is free to impose a condition as part of a plea arrangement requiring that a defendant cooperate with the Department of Probation (hereinafter DOP) by, among other things, truthfully answering questions and not denying guilt during a probation department interview (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185, 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 ; People v. Guzman–Hernandez, 135 A.D.3d 957, 957, 23 N.Y.S.3d 582 ; People v. Pianaforte, 126 A.D.3d 815, 816, 5 N.Y.S.3d 281 ; People v. Patterson, 106 A.D.3d 757, 757, 964 N.Y.S.2d 233 ). "[T]he violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence" ( People v. Pianaforte, 126 A.D.3d at 816, 5 N.Y.S.3d 281 ).
Here, the condition of the defendant's plea that he cooperate with the DOP by, inter alia, not "minimiz[ing][his] conduct" was explicit and objective, and was acknowledged, understood, and accepted by the defendant as part of the plea agreement (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d at 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 ; People v. Patterson, 106 A.D.3d at 757, 964 N.Y.S.2d 233 ). The defendant violated that condition by, among other things, denying sexual contact between himself and the 11–year–old complainant, and stating that the complainant had pursued him and initiated the sexual contact. The defendant's violation of the condition permitted the County Court to impose the enhanced sentence (see People v. Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d at 189, 746 N.Y.S.2d 441, 774 N.E.2d 205 ; People v. Patterson, 106 A.D.3d at 757, 964 N.Y.S.2d 233 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.