Opinion
January 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
It is well settled that where the defendant fails to comply with a condition of his or her plea agreement, the court is not bound by its original sentencing promise and may unilaterally impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v. McNeill, 164 A.D.2d 951; People v. Gamble, 111 A.D.2d 869). The sentence promised under Indictment No. 761/91 was clearly conditioned upon, among other things, the defendant appearing on the scheduled sentencing date. Thus, when the defendant failed to appear for sentencing, the court was free to impose an enhanced sentence (see, People v Johnson, 177 A.D.2d 651). We note that the sentence imposed was far less than the maximum sentence the court had previously stated it would impose in the event the defendant violated any conditions of the plea.
The defendant raises no contentions with respect to the amended judgment imposed under Indictment No. 1319/90. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.