You are here: / / THE PLEA AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE FULFILLED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT...
,

THE PLEA AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE FULFILLED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROMISED SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAM; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION, THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the plea was invalid because the plea agreement could not be fulfilled. Defendant was promised participation in the shock incarceration program, but a prior violent felony conviction rendered him ineligible. The court noted that the argument the plea was not voluntary (because the promise could not be fulfilled) was not preserved for appeal by a postallocution motion. The appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

There is no dispute that, in light of defendant’s prior violent felony conviction, he was not in fact eligible for participation in a shock incarceration program … . Nor is there any question that a judicial mandate for shock incarceration was part and parcel of defendant’s plea agreement … . “A guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … . As the promise made here cannot be honored, and given defendant’s insistence that his plea was involuntary, we deem vacatur of the plea and remittal to County Court for further proceedings to be the appropriate remedy  … . People v Regan, 2021 NY Slip Op 06007, Third Dept 11-4-21

 

You might also like
New Medicaid Reimbursement Procedures Did Not Violate State Administrative Procedure Act
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION APPLIED (LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200).
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE REPRESENTED DEFENDANT AND THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
ACCEPTING A VERDICT BEFORE REQUESTED TESTIMONY WAS READ BACK TO THE JURY WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DSS) TO COMMENCE A NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
Pulling Into Traffic Without Activating Lights and Siren Did Not Constitute Reckless Disregard for the Safety of Others
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ORDERING THE RELEASE OF A PRISONER BECAUSE OF THE RISK POSED BY COVID-19 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PETITION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PRISON OFFICIALS WERE DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT TO THE RISK (THIRD DEPT).
Revocation of Parole Based Upon Uncharged Assault Okay/Presence of Assault Victim at Revocation Hearing Excused

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

DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE... THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION CONSTITUTED...