People v Bobo
2007 NY Slip Op 06707 [43 AD3d 950]
September 11, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 7, 2007


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
TorinBobo, Appellant.

[*1]Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, N.Y. (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Argun M. Ulgen ofcounsel), for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Judith R. Sternberg of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, NassauCounty (Gulotta, J.), rendered October 19, 2005, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, toan indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3½ to 7 years upon his conviction of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, to run concurrently with a determinateterm of imprisonment of one year upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

In exchange for his plea of guilty, the defendant was promised a sentence of an indeterminateterm of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifthdegree and was further advised that if he failed to appear for sentencing he could be sentenced"to anything up to the maximum of three and a half to seven years."

The defendant failed to appear for sentencing and was returned on a bench warrant. When hewas brought before the court he claimed that he failed to appear on the original sentencing datebecause "I had a problem with my parole officer . . . I don't know. I just panicked, Iguess." This did not constitute a reasonable justification for failing to appear for sentencing(see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702 [1993]). Accordingly, the court properly imposed anenhanced sentence of an indeterminate term of 3½ to 7 years' imprisonment to run [*2]concurrently with a determinate term of imprisonment of one year(see People v Gianfrate, 192 AD2d 970, 973 [1993]; People v Francis, 11 Misc 3d142[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50733[U] [2006]).

The defendant's claim that the court should have conducted an additional inquiry as to whythe defendant failed to appear on the original sentencing date is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Goldstein, Covello andDickerson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.