You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; COUNTY...
,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, amending defendant’s sentence, determined restitution should not have been ordered because it was not addressed in the plea agreement:

Restitution was not part of the plea bargain, and thus the amended sentence exceeded the sentence promised in the plea bargain … . Defendant objected to County Court imposing restitution … , but the court rejected defendant’s request for specific performance of the plea agreement and instead offered defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea, which defendant declined. As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, defendant was entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement because he “placed himself in a no-return’ position by carrying out his obligations under” the agreement here, and there was “no significant additional information bearing upon the appropriateness of the plea bargain” … . People v Rosa, 2020 NY Slip Op 01793, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
WITNESS TAMPERING CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL REVERSED; NO CHARGES WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WITNESS (FOURTH DEPT).
CELLINO’S PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF CELLINO & BARNES PC PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR AN EMPLOYEE FOR WHOM DEFENDANT WOULD BE LIABLE PURSUANT TO RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BY DISTRIBUTING A TAX REFUND (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Allegations of Injuries in the Bill of Particulars Were Not So Broad as to Constitute a Waiver of the Physician-Patient Privilege for Plaintiff’s Entire Medical History
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IN THIS ARSON/MURDER CASE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (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

PENNSYLVANIA CRIME IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY; DEFENDANT SHOULD... THE POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE A FOUNDED SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN...