Opinion
June 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant's contention that the sentencing court erred in failing to honor its sentence agreement. Where, as here, the court expressly and specifically made its commitment to impose the minimum permissible sentence of two to four years subject to certain conditions and defendant subsequently violated one of those conditions, the court was no longer bound by the agreement but could impose a greater sentence without offering defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Murello, 39 N.Y.2d 879; People v Brooks, 154 A.D.2d 931; People v Harvey, 146 A.D.2d 585, 586, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 922; People v Dodson, 114 A.D.2d 421, 422).
The People were not required to charge the defense of agency to the Grand Jury. The evidence before the Grand Jury did not present a case of agency and, unlike People v Valles ( 62 N.Y.2d 36), defendant did not testify before the Grand Jury nor did he request that the defense of agency be charged (see, People v Beverly, 148 A.D.2d 922, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 661). Moreover, there is no requirement "that the Grand Jury must be charged with every potential defense suggested by the evidence" (People v Valles, supra, at 38) and the evidence "did not so clearly support the [agency] defense as to require its submission" (People v Valles, supra, at 41 [Kaye, J., concurring]; People v Beverly, supra, at 923).
Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive.