Opinion
August 7, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he is entitled to specific performance of his original plea agreements is without merit. The defendant did not perform any services for the prosecutor under the terms of the original plea agreements and the defendant did not suffer any detriment in reliance upon those agreements (cf., People v. Danny G., 61 N.Y.2d 169; People v. McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340; People v. Schaefer, 136 A.D.2d 661). The court offered the defendant the choice of either allowing his original pleas of guilty to stand or to withdraw the pleas, restore the defendant's original pleas of not guilty and proceed to trial. Moreover, the court stated that if the defendant chose to proceed to trial, it would offer to change the venue of the trial in order to ameliorate the adverse effects of the media publicity surrounding the defendant's original pleas (see, People v. Lynch, 23 N.Y.2d 262, 270). Accordingly, the defendant had an opportunity to restore himself to his preplea status and, thus, was not entitled to specific performance of the original plea agreements (cf., People v. Danny G., supra; People v. McConnell, supra; People v. Schaefer, supra).
We further find the defendant's sentences to be appropriate in view of the circumstances of the charged crimes (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.