From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 13, 1986
116 A.D.2d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

January 13, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.).


Sentence reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing.

During the plea proceedings, the court promised to sentence defendant to an indeterminate term of 2 1/2 to 5 years' imprisonment in exchange for his guilty plea to the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree. The court repeated the terms of the promise at the outset of the sentence proceedings. When it came time to impose sentence, however, the court inexplicably sentenced defendant to a lesser term of 2 to 4 years' imprisonment. It is apparent from the record that the court may have misspoken in rendering this lesser sentence and that it may have actually intended to impose the agreed-upon sentence of 2 1/2 to 5 years. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that both the order of commitment and an amended order of commitment state that the sentence is a term of imprisonment of 2 1/2 to 5 years. In view of this discrepancy we cannot determine what sentence the court intended to impose and therefore defendant's sentence must be reversed and the matter remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing (People v Wright, 56 N.Y.2d 613; People v Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, cert denied 455 U.S. 1024; People v Aponte, 110 A.D.2d 901).

We would also note — although the issue is not formally presented upon this limited appeal from the sentence — that in accepting defendant's plea, the clerk of the court apparently misspoke as he asked if defendant was pleading guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree rather than attempted burglary in the second degree, as per the plea agreement. Again, the minutes and the orders of commitment otherwise reflect that defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree (see, People v Minaya, supra).

We have examined the other contentions raised both by defendant pro se and by his counsel and find them to be without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816; People v Kepple, 98 A.D.2d 783). Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 13, 1986
116 A.D.2d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Ortiz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE ORTIZ, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 13, 1986

Citations

116 A.D.2d 598 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Stokes

The order of commitment in fact states that such a sentence was imposed. In view of this discrepancy, we…

People v. Shahid

A review of the record does not reveal a reason or explanation for the court's imposition of the longer…