People v. Levine
| Decision Date | 19 November 1990 |
| Citation | 562 N.Y.S.2d 155,167 A.D.2d 484 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sheldon LEVINE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Rogers & Wells, New York City (Mark F. Pomerantz and David F. Bayne, of counsel), and Ephraim Savitt, New York City, for appellant (one brief filed).
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (John M. Ryan, Vincent J. O'Reilly, Christine Duisin, Raymond M. Jermyn, Jr., and Paul M. Hensley, of counsel), for respondent.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and LAWRENCE, EIBER and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered October 23, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (11 counts), falsification of business records in the first degree (974 counts), criminal solicitation in the fourth degree (18 counts), violation of Tax Law § 1145 (4 counts), violation of Tax Law § 289-b (12 counts), and conspiracy in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to 11 consecutive terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment upon his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree, to run concurrently to 974 concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years imprisonment upon his conviction of falsification of business records in the first degree, to run concurrently to 18 concurrent terms of one year imprisonment upon his convictions of criminal solicitation in the fourth degree, violation of Tax Law § 1145 (4 counts), violation of Tax Law § 289-b (12 counts), and conspiracy in the fifth degree, imposition of a fine of $1000 on each count of grand larceny in the second degree and a fine of $100 on each count of falsification of business records in the first degree or, as an alternative to the fines, additional consecutive one-day terms of imprisonment for each $5 of the fines not paid by June 29, 1990, and a surcharge of $100.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof imposing, as an alternative to the fines, consecutive one-day terms of imprisonment for each $5 of the fines not paid by June 29, 1990; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court had clearly conditioned the imposition of the promised sentence upon the defendant's compliance with certain conditions, including the payment of a sum of money in the nature of restitution at the time of sentencing. While the defendant and his counsel were given ample opportunity to explain the defendant's failure to fulfill the conditions, the proffered explanations were properly found to be unsubstantiated and insufficient. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to specific performance of the promised sentence (see, People v. Murello, 39 N.Y.2d 879, 386 N.Y.S.2d 223, 352 N.E.2d 141;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levine v. Commissioner of Correctional Services
...for additional imprisonment in the event that the fines were not paid, but otherwise affirmed the sentence. See People v. Levine, 167 A.D.2d 484, 562 N.Y.S.2d 155 (2d Dep't 1990). The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. 77 N.Y.2d 879, 568 N.Y.S.2d 922, 571 N.E.2d 92 Thereafter, Levine ......
-
People v. James
... ... Rosenberg, supra, at 347, 538 N.Y.S.2d 558), should a defendant be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea ... Here, defendant presented no proof at the hearing in support of his assertion that he was entitled to the benefit of the plea bargain (see, People v. Levine, 167 A.D.2d 484, 485, 562 N.Y.S.2d 155, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 879, 568 N.Y.S.2d 922, 571 N.E.2d 92). It is also significant that defendant never moved in County Court to withdraw his plea (see, CPL 220.60[3] ); as a result, this issue was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Levine, ... ...
- People v. Kronenberg
-
People v. Levine
...Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Edward D. Saslaw and Christine Duisin, of counsel), for respondent. Prior report: 167 A.D.2d 484, 562 N.Y.S.2d 155. Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 6, 1991, which ......