People v. McLean
| Decision Date | 26 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | 101685. |
| Citation | 59 A.D.3d 859,2009 NY Slip Op 01366,873 N.Y.S.2d 383 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SAMUEL MCLEAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered June 4, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.
In satisfaction of three pending indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the second degree, waived his right to appeal and thereafter was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to a prison term of 12 years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Additionally, defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $5,667.90, including the applicable surcharges. Defendant now appeals.
Initially, we reject defendant's claim that the People breached the plea agreement and, as such, County Court should have afforded defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Simply put, the plea colloquy reflects nothing more than the People's willingness to recommend a determinate sentence of nine years if defendant provided certain information regarding an ongoing investigation. As summarized by defense counsel, County Court further clarified the sentencing proposal, asking defendant if he understood that he would be sentenced "to somewhere between nine years and twelve years in prison," to which defendant responded in the affirmative. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the foregoing does not reflect an unconditional commitment on the part of the People to recommend a lesser sentence, nor does the record substantiate defendant's claim that County Court agreed to be bound by any such recommendation. Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that defendant's plea was induced by a firm promise that was breached (see People v Jones, 184 AD2d 528, 529 [1992]).
We do, however, agree with defendant that County Court erred in failing to conduct a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ford
...A.D.3d 1231, 1232, 896 N.Y.S.2d 264 [2010], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 893, 903 N.Y.S.2d 781, 929 N.E.2d 1016 [2010]; People v. McLean, 59 A.D.3d 859, 860-861, 873 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2009] ). Nor does the waiver preclude his claim that the restitution order is illegal in that it exceeds the statutory ......
-
People v. Vazquez
...89 N.Y.2d 140, 143, 651 N.Y.S.2d 963, 674 N.E.2d 672 ; People v. Isaacs, 71 A.D.3d 1161, 1161, 898 N.Y.S.2d 226 ; People v. McLean, 59 A.D.3d 859, 860–861, 873 N.Y.S.2d 383 ). However, the plea minutes demonstrate that the defendant was told that restitution was part of her plea agreement, ......
-
People v. Ulmer
...with the disposition of the probation violation (see People v. Gardner, 129 A.D.3d 1386, 1388, 12 N.Y.S.3d 353 [2015] ; People v. McLean, 59 A.D.3d 859, 873 N.Y.S.2d 383 [2009] ).ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reversing so muc......
-
People v. Isaacs
...of restitution and reparation imposed at sentencing is not foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. McLean, 59 A.D.3d 859, 860-861, 873 N.Y.S.2d 383; People v. Sartori, 8 A.D.3d 748, 749, 777 N.Y.S.2d 792; People v. Sweeney, 4 A.D.3d 769, 770, 771 N.Y.S.2d 760). Howev......