From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thorpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1993
189 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 25, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).


Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

It is well settled that where the defendant fails to comply with a condition of his or her plea agreement, the court is not bound by its original sentencing promise and may unilaterally impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v. McNeill, 164 A.D.2d 951; People v. Gamble, 111 A.D.2d 869). The sentence promised under Indictment No. 761/91 was clearly conditioned upon, among other things, the defendant appearing on the scheduled sentencing date. Thus, when the defendant failed to appear for sentencing, the court was free to impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v Johnson, 177 A.D.2d 651). We note that the sentence imposed was far less than the maximum sentence the court had previously stated it would impose in the event the defendant violated any conditions of the plea.

The defendant raises no contentions with respect to the amended judgment imposed under Indictment No. 1319/90. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Thorpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 25, 1993
189 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Thorpe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LARITA THORPE…

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

Date published: Jan 25, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 903 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Citing Cases

State v. Browning

The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly imposed a greater sentence than what had been…

People v. Williams

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. There was no error in the court sentencing the defendant in the…