The Third Department determined County Court had the authority to amend the amount of restitution initially ordered at sentencing. However, the change required giving the defendant the right to withdraw the guilty plea:
Notably, “in the normal course of events, the People must ‘advise the court at or before the time of sentencing that the victim seeks restitution . . . and the amount of restitution . . . sought’ (Penal Law § 60.27 ), and the trial court must determine the amount of restitution at the time of sentencing” … . Nevertheless, “the court’s continuing jurisdiction to impose restitution has been recognized where the claim for restitution is raised at or prior to sentencing and the modification or correction of the sentence occurs within a reasonable time thereafter” … .
Here, we do not find the delay between defendant’s September 2009 sentencing and the modification of the restitution order in September 2010 following a hearing unreasonable given the various factors presented by this case … . “Nonetheless, [a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” … . Thus, in light of the fact that the amended restitution amount unquestionably exceeds the total amount to which defendant agreed at the time of her plea and she seeks, among other things, vacatur of that plea herein, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter for the purpose of allowing defendant the opportunity to either accept the enhanced restitution amount or withdraw her plea… . People v Mahar, 103960, 3rd Dept 9-26-13