People v. Miller

Decision Date22 December 1980
Citation434 N.Y.S.2d 36,79 A.D.2d 687
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward Stanley MILLER, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Martin Geduldig, Floral Park, for appellant.

John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Michael J. Connolly and Deborah Carlin Stevens, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P. J., and COHALAN, O'CONNOR and WEINSTEIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeals by defendant from (1) two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered April 26, 1976, convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences, and (2) (by permission) an order of the same court, dated July 10, 1979, denying defendant's motion to vacate those judgments.

Judgments and order affirmed.

Prior to his pleas, defendant had made a motion for omnibus relief, including the dismissal of some or all of the counts against him. The court offered to allow defendant to plead guilty to two counts of robbery in the first degree in full satisfaction of two indictments pending against him, and promised to impose concurrent sentences of 71/2 to 15 years, but only on condition that defendant withdraw his motion and plead guilty immediately. The court made it clear that if defendant rejected this offer, he would be required to go to trial. The defendant accepted the offer, withdrew his motion, and pleaded guilty.

Reasonable conditions, such as the withdrawal of pending motions, may be attached to permission to enter a guilty plea (see People v. Esajerre, 35 N.Y.2d 463, 363 N.Y.S.2d 931, 323 N.E.2d 175). Such conditions must not amount to overreaching or a denial of a defendant's entitlement to fundamental fairness (see People v. White, 32 N.Y.2d 393, 345 N.Y.S.2d 513, 298 N.E.2d 659), particularly when the court brings its naturally intimidating power into play during the plea negotiations (see United States ex rel. Elksnis v. Gilligan, D.C., 256 F.Supp. 244). We hold that under the circumstances present here, defendant's rights were duly preserved. Further, his delay of three years in bringing the motion to vacate the judgments militates against granting the requested relief.

Defendant's arguments as to entitlement to work release are not well-taken, for participation in such a program is deemed a "privilege", giving rise to no vested rights cognizable under the ex post facto doctrine (see Correction Law, § 855, subd....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 5, 1988
    ...terms of the conditions imposed do not require a party to the bargain to act in a manner contrary to law (see, e.g., People v. Miller, 79 A.D.2d 687, 688, 434 N.Y.S.2d 36 ["reasonable" conditions may be attached to a plea bargain] ). Since it is clearly not illegal for a convicted criminal ......
  • Dugar v. Coughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 11, 1985
    ...455, 456 (2d Dept.1984); Hoffman v. Wilson, 86 A.D.2d 735, 735, 446 N.Y.S.2d 609, 610-11 (3d Dept.1982); People v. Miller, 79 A.D.2d 687, 688, 434 N.Y.S.2d 36, 37 (2d Dept. 1980); cf. Dumschat, supra, 452 U.S. at 465, 101 S.Ct. at Inclusion in the program depends upon the Temporary Release ......
  • Dorst v. Pataki
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1995
    ...it is well settled that the ex post facto doctrine does not apply to the temporary release program (see, e.g., People v. Miller, 79 A.D.2d 687, 688, 434 N.Y.S.2d 36, cert. denied, 452 U.S. 919, 101 S.Ct. 3056, 69 L.Ed.2d 423), at least one Federal Court has held that while the state can cha......
  • Gunter v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1989
    ...a work release program is a privilege, giving rise to no vested rights cognizable under the ex post facto doctrine. People v. Miller, 79 A.D.2d 687, 434 N.Y.S.2d 36 (1980). Further, in Morris v. Meacham, 718 P.2d 1354 (Okla.1986), the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the retroactive applicatio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT