People v. Armstead
| Decision Date | 19 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2002-03441. |
| Citation | 48 A.D.3d 694,852 N.Y.S.2d 313,2008 NY Slip Op 01554 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANTHONY ARMSTEAD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J.), rendered March 11, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated December 12, 2006, this Court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the issues of whether the defendant voluntarily entered into a valid cooperation agreement with the People, and whether the defendant breached the terms of the cooperation agreement, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see People v Armstead, 35 AD3d 624 [2006]). The Supreme Court has filed its report.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and petit larceny pursuant to the terms of a cooperation agreement he entered into with the Office of the Queens County District Attorney (hereinafter the District Attorney) to provide assistance in a pending murder prosecution. The agreement provided for a very favorable resolution of the charges at bar and other charges upon the successful completion of its terms. If the defendant failed to cooperate or "commit[ted] any further crimes," the agreement, inter alia, subjected the defendant to an enhanced sentence on the robbery charge. At sentencing, the People asserted that the defendant breached the agreement by being indicted for a subsequent crime and sought an enhanced sentence on the robbery charge pursuant to the agreement. In response, defense counsel moved to be relieved, noting that the defendant was going to be "filing a claim" against him, and was now claiming, among other things, that he had been coerced or misled into signing the agreement. After the motion was denied, the defendant denied that he had entered into an agreement providing for an enhanced sentence or that he had "committed" a subsequent crime. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant's arguments and imposed an enhanced sentence on the robbery charge "per the agreement." On appeal, this Court, finding that the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel at his sentencing, and that the statements made at sentencing raised issues as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Timberlake
...Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 543, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646;People v. Lewis, 73 A.D.3d 1212, 900 N.Y.S.2d 912;People v. Armstead, 48 A.D.3d 694, 695, 852 N.Y.S.2d 313). To the extent the defendant contends that the Supreme Court failed to make a sufficient inquiry into whether he viol......
-
People v. Newson
...The express condition thatthe defendant avoid committing a crime is different from a no-arrest condition ( see People v. Armstead, 48 A.D.3d 694, 695, 852 N.Y.S.2d 313 ["the Supreme Court properly found that the defendant breached the terms of the cooperation agreement by committing a subse......
-
People v. Armstead
...N.E.2d 404 10 N.Y.3d 931 PEOPLE v. ARMSTEAD. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. June 16, 2008. Appeal from 2d Dept.: 48 A.D.3d 694, 852 N.Y.S.2d 313 Application for leave to criminal appeal Denied. (Graffeo, J.) ...
- Matter of Simpson v. Gelin, Docket No. F-15614-06.