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
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
Attorney’s Charging Lien Based Upon a Judgment for Child Support Arrears Was Proper—Relevant Law Explained
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ONE OF THE GRAND JURORS HAD A FELONY CONVICTION RENDERING THE GRAND JURY ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED WAS IRRELEVANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
SECTION EIGHT HOUSING SUBSIDIES ARE NOT ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THEREFORE A WELFARE FRAUD PROSECUTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON SECTION EIGHT BENEFITS (FOURTH DEPT).
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A VEHICLE WAS A LESSER INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF THE GRAND LARCENY COUNT, CONVICTION ON THE GRAND LARCENY COUNT REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE LESSER COUNT (FOURTH DEPT).
HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

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...