People v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 30 January 1995 |
| Citation | 621 N.Y.S.2d 672,211 A.D.2d 829 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Benjamin PATTERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Paul Liu, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Nicole Beder, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and ROSENBLATT, MILLER, COPERTINO and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), imposed November 8, 1991, upon his conviction of burglary in the first degree, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree and attempted burglary in the first degree with the understanding that if he appeared for sentencing, the burglary in the first degree count would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years imprisonment for attempted burglary in the first degree. The defendant was advised, however, that if he failed to appear for sentencing, he would receive a sentence of an indeterminate term of 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment for burglary in the first degree. The defendant did not appear at sentencing, and the court imposed the enhanced sentence.
Although the defendant waived his right to appeal, the waiver should not be enforced, inasmuch as it was conditioned on the imposition of a sentence of an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years imprisonment for attempted burglary in the first degree (see, People v. Prescott, 196 A.D.2d 599, 601 N.Y.S.2d 325).
Upon review, however, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed. The defendant was aware of the consequences of his failure to appear for sentencing (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351), and under the circumstances of this case, the disparity between the promised sentence for attempted burglary in the first degree and the sentence ultimately imposed for burglary in the first degree does not render the latter unduly harsh (cf., People v. Figueroa, 186 A.D.2d 146, 587 N.Y.S.2d 427).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barnett
...675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46). Under the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh (see, People v. Patterson, 211 A.D.2d 829, 621 N.Y.S.2d 672). The defendant was adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender based on his previous burglary convictions, and he wa......
-
People v. Ling
...the defendant unjustifiably failed to appear for sentencing, the court was free to impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v. Patterson, 211 A.D.2d 829, 621 N.Y.S.2d 672; People v. Thorpe, 189 A.D.2d 903, 592 N.Y.S.2d Finally, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, Peop......
-
People v. Valentine
...attendant to this case, we find that the sentences imposed upon the defendant were not unduly harsh (see, People v. Patterson, 211 A.D.2d 829, 621 N.Y.S.2d 672; see also, People v. Velez, 216 A.D.2d 339, 628 N.Y.S.2d 158 [2d Dept., June 5, 1995]; People v. Clarke, 211 A.D.2d 807, 621 N.Y.S.2d ...
-
People v. Velez
...the sentence imposed was an enhanced term of two to six years of imprisonment, the waiver may not be enforced (see, People v. Patterson, 211 A.D.2d 829, 621 N.Y.S.2d 672; People v. Prescott, 196 A.D.2d 599, 601 N.Y.S.2d 325). Upon appellate review, however, we find that the sentence ultimat......