People v. Therrien
| Decision Date | 09 January 2003 |
| Citation | 301 A.D.2d 751,753 N.Y.S.2d 235 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>KEVIN P. THERRIEN, Appellant. |
On June 28, 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal contempt in the first degree, waiving his right to appeal, in satisfaction of a 16-count indictment and was promised a sentence which included, inter alia, a six-month jail term and probation. County Court admonished defendant as follows, "I will accept that plea in full satisfaction of all counts of the indictment, and if you don't commit a crime between now and the day of sentencing, I will sentence you [as per the plea agreement]." Sentencing was scheduled for August 28, 2001. On July 27, 2001, after having served the equivalent of the proposed six-month jail term, defendant appeared in County Court. Because he was being released on his own recognizance prior to sentencing, he executed a form acknowledging that he read and understood the Parker warnings (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141), and was admonished, inter alia, that if he failed to appear for sentencing or committed a crime before sentencing, the court could sentence him to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison.
Defendant failed to appear for sentencing on the appointed date and, between July 27, 2001 and August 28, 2001, he was arrested for various offenses, including felonies, and had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in Schuyler County. Upon defendant's arrest on a bench warrant and his return to County Court, he attempted to excuse his failure to make a voluntary appearance by explaining that he had been busy making truck deliveries in the Boston, Massachusetts area. County Court, reciting both defendant's failure to appear and his being charged with various offenses, sentenced defendant to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his failure to appear at his original sentencing proceeding and his arrest for an apparently unrelated crime. Since the Parker conditions were not imposed as conditions of the plea agreement on June 28, 2001, County Court could not impose a greater sentence based upon their violation (see People v Covell, 276 AD2d 824, 825). Nevertheless, because defendant violated the one condition imposed by the court on June 28 when he pleaded guilty, we find County Court was free to impose an enhanced sentence. At sentencing, County Court recited that it had been reported to the court that defendant had been charged with various offenses since his release. The court invited argument from counsel and defendant as to whether defendant should be sentenced as originally proposed. The District Attorney recited, inter alia, that defendant had committed another crime and pleaded guilty to that crime. Defendant's attorney confirmed that defendant pleaded to a misdemeanor in Schuyler County. Defendant, when given the opportunity to explain his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Benn
...30 A.D.3d 893, 895, 817 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 847, 823 N.Y.S.2d 776, 857 N.E.2d 71 [2006] ; People v. Therrien, 301 A.D.2d 751, 752, 753 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2003], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 633, 760 N.Y.S.2d 114, 790 N.E.2d 288 [2003] ). Defendant also challenges the severity of the e......
-
People v. King
...impose a greater sentence than the one agreed upon as part of the plea agreement on a violation of the warnings (see People v. Therrien , 301 A.D.2d 751, 752, 753 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2003], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 633, 760 N.Y.S.2d 114, 790 N.E.2d 288 [2003] ). We have been informed that, while this ......
-
People v. Haran
...to comply with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court did not err in imposing an enhanced sentence ( see People v. Therrien, 301 A.D.2d 751, 752, 753 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2003], lv. denied99 N.Y.2d 633, 760 N.Y.S.2d 114, 790 N.E.2d 288 [2003] ). ORDERED that the judgment is ...
-
People v. Mosley
...27 A.D.3d 840, 840–841, 810 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 754, 819 N.Y.S.2d 880, 853 N.E.2d 251 [2006]; People v. Therrien, 301 A.D.2d 751, 752–753, 753 N.Y.S.2d 235 [2003], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 633, 760 N.Y.S.2d 114, 790 N.E.2d 288 [2003] ). ORDERED that the judgment is...