From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. O'Neil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 15, 1992

Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant initially pleaded guilty to perjury in the second degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to an indeterminate term of 1 1/2 to 3 years imprisonment, provided that the probation report did not indicate that a greater sentence was necessary. The probation report subsequently revealed that the defendant had an extensive criminal history. After a lengthy off-the-record conference, and a one-day adjournment so that the defense counsel could confer with the defendant, the defense counsel expressly agreed on the record to the imposition of a sentence of an indeterminate term of 1 2/3 to 3 1/3 years imprisonment. The defendant did not object or indicate any desire to withdraw his plea. Under these circumstances, we find no merit to the defendant's present contention on appeal that he was entitled to specific performance of the original plea agreement (see, People v. Schultz, 73 N.Y.2d 757, 758; People v. Fludd, 137 A.D.2d 764, 765).

We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. O'Neil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 1992
184 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. O'Neil

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEITH O'NEIL, Appellant

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

Date published: Jun 15, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 663 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Moore

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court breached the plea agreement is not preserved for appellate…

People v. Miller

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that reversal is required based…