From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 27, 2001
289 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

12902

Decided and Entered: December 27, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (Di Stefano, J.), rendered January 4, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the second degree.

Tracy L. Pugliese, Clinton, for appellant.

Donald F. Cerio Jr., District Attorney, Wampsville, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On November 9, 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted assault in the second degree in exchange for a determinate jail sentence of one year. As a condition of accepting his guilty plea, County Court advised defendant that if he got "into any trouble" while on release awaiting sentencing, the court would not be bound by the agreed-upon sentence. On November 28, 2000, defendant was arrested and charged with four violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, including the crimes of aggravated unlicenced operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and leaving the scene of a personal injury accident. Prior to sentencing on the attempted assault charge, defendant pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident with respect to the November 28, 2000 incident. As a result of this latter plea, County Court imposed an enhanced sentence of 1 to 3 years.

Defendant appeals, contending that his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. Once defendant breached the conditional sentencing agreement, County Court was free to impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713; People v. Hicks, 265 A.D.2d 600, 601). The court clearly advised defendant at the plea hearing that the original sentence commitment was conditional and that any breach of a condition would dissolve it (see, People v. Whittaker, 257 A.D.2d 854, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 880). In light of defendant's breach, the violent nature of the crime and defendant's lengthy criminal record, we find that the enhanced sentence was appropriate (see, People v. Kennard, 266 A.D.2d 718, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 864).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Barilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 27, 2001
289 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Barilla

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL J. BARILLA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 27, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 517

Citing Cases

People v. Whaley

We reject defendant's contention that County Court impermissibly enhanced his sentence inasmuch as the…

People v. Straight

While the court advised defendant of certain specific conditions of his release related to the consumption…