From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 2003
309 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-02407

Submitted September 24, 2003.

October 20, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Farneti, J.), rendered October 16, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty (Sherman, J.), and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 6 to 18 years imprisonment.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed thereon to an indeterminate term of 3 1/3 to 10 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The transcript of the minutes of the proceedings at which the defendant entered his plea of guilty does not indicate that the defendant was told, nor can it be implied therefrom, that he understood that if he failed to appear on the date scheduled for sentencing or was arrested for a subsequent offense, the sentencing court could impose a harsher sentence than the indeterminate 3 1/3 to 10 year sentence promised to him in consideration of his guilty plea. Even though the defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was subsequently arrested in another state, the sentencing court could not impose a sentence greater than the one bargained for without first affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea and stand trial ( see People v. Arbil C., 190 A.D.2d 856; People v. White, 144 A.D.2d 711; People v. Cook, 130 A.D.2d 503; People v. Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709). Since the indictment under which the prosecution arose is now more than 12 years old, it would prejudice the People to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea and go to trial. Accordingly, the sentence should be reduced to conform with the plea agreement, as requested in the defendant's brief on appeal ( see People v. White, supra).

FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 20, 2003
309 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ANTHONY RUIZ, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 20, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 883 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 57

Citing Cases

People v. Takim Newson

ld, nor can it be inferred that he understood, that if he were to be merely arrested on another charge, the…

People v. Sokolowski

However, the transcript of the plea proceeding does not indicate that the defendant was told that, if he were…