People v. Innes
| Decision Date | 20 May 1985 |
| Citation | 489 N.Y.S.2d 121,111 A.D.2d 356 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. James INNES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, BRACKEN and NIEHOFF, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Motion by the People for an order granting reargument of the appeal in the above entitled case, decided by decision and order of this court, both dated January 14, 1985. 107 A.D.2d 712, 484 N.Y.S.2d 68.
Motion for reargument granted, and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this court, both dated January 14, 1985, are recalled and vacated, and the following decision is substituted therefor:
Appeals by defendant, as limited by his motion, from four sentences of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), each imposed February 24, 1984, the sentences being two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7 1/2 to 15 years, to run concurrent to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of 7 1/2 to 15 years, upon his conviction of four counts of robbery in the second degree, after pleas of guilty.
Sentences affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree under each of four indictments in return for the court's promises that he "remain at liberty pending sentence" and that he be sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of four and one-half years to nine years. The court advised the defendant that its promises were subject to the following conditions, which defendant stated he understood:
"number one, that you show up for sentence, number two, that you cooperate with probation, number three, most important, that you don't get rearrested and charged with any other crimes or offenses".
The defendant also claimed he understood the court's admonition that:
"If you violate any of theconditions * * * you are facing the possibility of consecutive sentence totalling thirty to sixty years which would be the maximum sentence to be imposed by you under each one of these indictments as a second or predicate felon, you would owe seven and a half to fifteen--withdraw that, on the C felony, yes, it would be thirty to sixty years, you could face seven and a half to fifteen years consecutive sentence on each one of these".
The defendant was arrested prior to sentencing and charged with several robberies. At the sentencing in the instant matter, the court adverted to its admonition and sentenced the defendant as a second-felony offender to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7 1/2 to 15 years, to run...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Innes v. Dalsheim
...the Appellate Division granted the motion, vacated its prior decision, and affirmed the 15 to 30-year sentence. People v. Innes, 111 A.D.2d 356, 489 N.Y.S.2d 121 (2d Dep't 1985). The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. 65 N.Y.2d 982, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1050, 484 N.E.2d 680 Innes the......
-
People v. Amendolara
...for a class A felony (CPL 530.40[3]; compare, People v. Gamble, 111 A.D.2d 869, 490 N.Y.S.2d 598 [2d Dept.1985]; People v. Innes, 111 A.D.2d 356, 498 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept.1985] ). There is no doubt that the defendant, under these circumstances, could have enforced the terms of the plea bar......
-
People v. Maietta
...sentencing (People v. Murello, 47 A.D.2d 528, 364 N.Y.S.2d 426, affd. 39 N.Y.2d 879, 386 N.Y.S.2d 223, 352 N.E.2d 141; People v. Innes, 111 A.D.2d 356, 489 N.Y.S.2d 121; People v. Caridi, 148 A.D.2d 625, 539 N.Y.S.2d 88; People v. Hernandez, 155 A.D.2d 361, 547 N.Y.S.2d 329; People v. Harri......
-
Innes v. Dalsheim, 87 C 2064.
...484 N.Y.S.2d 68 (2d Dep't 1985), but thereafter granted reargument, vacated its prior order, and affirmed the sentence. 111 A.D.2d 356, 489 N.Y.S. 2d 121 (2d Dep't 1985). The Court of Appeals denied leave to Claiming that enforcement of the condition not to get arrested and charged with new......