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
A HOSPITAL HAS A DUTY TO RETAIN AN INTOXICATED PATIENT WHO HAS BEEN ADMITTED INVOLUNTARILY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IF THE PATIENT IS INCAPACITATED TO A DEGREE THERE WAS A LIKELIHOOD OF HARM TO THE PATIENT OR OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).
“Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleged Negligence
THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS INSIDE THE STOPPED VEHICLE RAISED A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ARMED, JUSTIFYING A PAT DOWN SEARCH; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE EQUIVOCAL AND INNOCUOUS (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE SPEED OF THE POLICE VEHICLE AND WHETHER THE SIREN WAS ON AS REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STREET REPAIR WORK DONE BY THE CITY IN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS DONE MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE AND DETERIORATED GRADUALLY OVER TIME; IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO BE LIABLE FOR CREATING THE DANGEROUS CONDITION THE DEFECT MUST HAVE BEEN THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF THE WORK (FOURTH DEPT). ​
HERE THE PEOPLE REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HUNTLEY HEARING BUT THE RECORD IS SILENT ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT; THEREFORE THE ENTIRE TIME BETWEEN THE REQUEST AND THE HEARING WAS COUNTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE FOR “SPEEDY TRIAL” PURPOSES (FOURTH DEPT).
An Issue Raised for the First Time on Appeal Will Not Be Considered Where the Defect Could Have Been Cured If Raised Below/Trial Court Can Grant Summary Judgment Based on an Unpleaded Defense

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 © 2026 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...