From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rutigliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted November 14, 2000.

December 6, 2000.

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Irizarry, J.), dated September 28, 1999, which denied his motion, pursuant to CPL 440.20, to vacate a sentence imposing a term of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years, upon a judgment of the same court, rendered June 9, 1998, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Michael Rutigliano, Rome, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Joyce Slevin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the sentence is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence because he was slightly late in appearing at his original sentencing proceeding on May 18, 1998. We agree. The record of the defendant's plea proceeding does not substantiate the People's assertion that the defendant knew he was to appear for sentencing at 9:30 A.M. on the appointed sentencing date. Similarly, the record does not substantiate the sentencing court's conclusion that the defendant had been given "explicit instructions" to appear for sentencing at 11:15 A.M. on the appointed date. Thus, when the defendant appeared "late in the morning on the date of sentence", the court was not authorized to impose an enhanced sentence in excess of a term of imprisonment of 1 1/4 to 3 3/4 years agreed upon pursuant to the plea agreement, without affording the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v. Curcio, 276 A.D.2d 639 [2d Dept., Oct. 16, 2000]; People v. Milo, 235 A.D.2d 552; People v. Calendar, 227 A.D.2d 639; People v. McKinney, 215 A.D.2d 407; People v. Hodge, 207 A.D.2d 845). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for the Supreme Court, Kings County, to impose the agreed-upon sentence, or for the defendant to be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v. Michael, 190 A.D.2d 758).


Summaries of

People v. Rutigliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 6, 2000
278 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Rutigliano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL RUTIGLIANO, APPELLANT. (IND. NO…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 258 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
717 N.Y.S.2d 295

Citing Cases

People v. Blades

The Supreme Court imposed an enhanced sentence on the ground that the defendant appeared several hours late…