You are here: / / SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION...
,

SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the sentencing court did not have the authority to promise defendant would go to “shock camp” and defendant had relied on the judge’s promise when he pled guilty:

The record establishes that the court believed it had the authority to grant defendant admission into a shock incarceration program and that it made such admission a condition of defendant’s guilty plea. At sentencing, the court acted in accordance with its perceived authority and the plea agreement by imposing a term of incarceration of 1½ to 3 years “with shock camp.” There is no dispute that defendant was not admitted into a shock incarceration program.

We agree with defendant that the court had no authority to assure him of admission into a shock incarceration program or to impose such as part of the sentence … . Inasmuch as the record establishes that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied on a promise of the court that could not, as a matter of law, be honored, defendant is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea … . People v Smith, 2018 NY Slip Op 03025, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))/SHOCK CAMP (CRIMINAL LAW, SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASSURE DEFENDANT OF ADMISSION INTO THE SHOCK PROGRAM, DEFENDANT’S PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK. LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
TENANT DID NOT COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS, TENANT’S BRINGING A PLENARY ACTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE EVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CLAIM SPLITTING (FOURTH DEPT).
In Absence of a “Special Relationship” Insurer Not Liable for Agent’s Negligent Misrepresentation
STREET STOP JUSTIFIED, FACTS AND LAW EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT DURING A CONTROLLED PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE MOTHER OF THE ALLEGED CHILD VICTIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT IN A CLOSED ROOM AT THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE, WHERE DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED AND CONFRONTED WITH HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS INTERROGATED, HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
No Statute of Limitations Applies to an Owner Seeking to Have an Apparent Encumbrance Struck from the Record
HERE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE WILL WAS IN A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DECEDENT AND THE WILL WAS PREPARED BY AN ATTORNEY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BENEFICIARY; THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OBJECTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BUS DRIVER WAS SPRAYED WITH DIESEL FUEL AS SHE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE TANK OF THE BUS SHE WAS DRIVING; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE GAS PUMP NOZZLE AND THE GAS STATION DEMONSTRATED THE NOZZLE AND THE GAS PUMP WERE WORKING PROPERLY; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A RELEVANT DESIGN FLAW IN THE FUEL SYSTEM OF THE BUS; THE NOZZLE MANUFACTURER’S AND THE GAS STATION’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE TRIAL JUDGE RESERVED DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER... THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST...