From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tesiero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 4, 1992
184 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 4, 1992

Appeal from the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.).


Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of sexual abuse in the first degree in full satisfaction of a 28-count indictment charging various degrees of rape, sodomy and sexual abuse. The plea was given with the understanding, stated on the record, that County Court would sentence defendant to a prison term of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years unless review of the presentence report caused County Court to view that sentence as inappropriate, in which case defendant would be permitted to withdraw his plea. Subsequently, County Court stated that, based upon the information contained in the presentence report, it would not sentence defendant in accordance with the plea bargain. Rather, County Court offered defendant the choice of withdrawing his plea, accepting an indeterminate sentence of 2 1/3 to 7 years or, of greatest relevance here, demanding a hearing for the production of evidence on the issue of whether the promised sentence should be imposed. Defendant initially chose the alternative of a hearing but, following a statement by County Court that at the conclusion of the hearing it may withdraw its consent to a sentence of 2 1/3 to 7 years and set the matter down for trial, defendant accepted the 2 1/3 to 7-year sentence. Defendant now appeals, contending that he should be resentenced to the 1 1/2 to 4 1/2-year term originally promised because County Court's threat of vacating defendant's plea and setting the matter down for trial coerced defendant into accepting the "enlarged" sentence.

There should be an affirmance. In a case such as this, where information disclosed in a presentence report persuades the sentencing court that the negotiated sentence is inappropriate, the proper course is to permit the defendant the choice of either withdrawing his plea or accepting an appropriate sentence (see, People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 240, cert denied 419 U.S. 1122; People v. Pittman, 129 A.D.2d 592, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 716 ). Defendant was offered those choices. County Court's offer of yet another choice cannot be considered coercive. Because the record establishes that the promise of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years was conditional, and absent a showing that defendant detrimentally changed his position after he entered his plea, defendant is not entitled to specific performance of the original plea bargain (see, People v. Selikoff, supra, at 238-239; Matter of Guzman v Harrigan, 158 A.D.2d 872, 873). At most, defendant would be entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea (see, supra), the very action which he attacks as threatening.

Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Tesiero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 4, 1992
184 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Tesiero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD D. TESIERO…

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 802 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 228

Citing Cases

Constant v. Martuscello

Where sentencing pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement is inappropriate, the court must offer the…

People v. Walker

At the time of sentence, however, County Court indicated that it was no longer willing to impose the…