Opinion
May 1, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence that was imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.
By pleading guilty, the defendant waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury (see, People v Dunbar, 53 N.Y.2d 868; People v Contestabile, 202 A.D.2d 442).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, detailed and accurate information from an anonymous source provided the arresting police officer with reasonable suspicion that the defendant might be armed (see, People v Salaman, 71 N.Y.2d 869; People v Chestnut, 51 N.Y.2d 14, 21, cert denied 449 U.S. 1018; People v Harry, 187 A.D.2d 669), and the discovery of a gun on the defendant's person gave the officer probable cause to arrest the defendant (see, People v Heron, 178 A.D.2d 656).
The sentencing court erred by imposing a single term of imprisonment for all four counts of the indictment to which the defendant pleaded guilty (see, CPL 380.20; People v Sturgis, 69 N.Y.2d 816). The matter must, therefore, be remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing (see, People v Sturgis, supra; People v Mohammed, 126 A.D.2d 673).
For the purposes of resentencing, we note that the minutes of the plea proceeding do not indicate that the defendant was told, nor can it be inferred that he understood, that if he failed to appear for sentencing on the scheduled date the court could impose a harsher sentence than the four to eight years of imprisonment that he was promised. It was, therefore, error for the sentencing court to impose an enhanced sentence without affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea (see, People v Michael, 190 A.D.2d 758; People v Annunziata, 105 A.D.2d 709). However, in light of the defendant's request for a reduction of the sentence rather than an opportunity to withdraw his plea and the prosecution's acquiescence to such a remedy, the new sentence for the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree should not exceed four to eight years.
We need not reach the defendant's contention that the sentence that was imposed is excessive in light of our determination. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.