People v Fleming
2008 NY Slip Op 03519 [50 AD3d 1390]
April 24, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 18, 2008


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

[*1]Peter M. Torncello, Public Defender, Albany (Theresa M. Suozzi of counsel), forappellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), renderedSeptember 30, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Waiving his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the fifth degree, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to 2½ to 5years in prison. At the time of the plea, County Court informed defendant that an enhancedsentence of 3½ to 7 years in prison could be imposed if he did not abide by the conditionsof the plea agreement, which included cooperating with the presentence investigation andappearing in court on the scheduled date of sentencing. Defendant admittedly failed to complywith those conditions and, thus, County Court sentenced him to an enhanced term of 3 to 6 yearsin prison. The court also informed defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal did not bar achallenge to his sentence. Defendant now appeals, challenging the imposition of the enhancedsentence.

Inasmuch as the conditions of the plea agreement—which defendant admittedlyviolated—did not contravene statutory provisions or public policy, and County Courtinformed defendant during the plea colloquy of the maximum potential sentence fornoncompliance with the conditions, we cannot say that the court erred in imposing an enhancedsentence (see People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840, 841 [1995]; People v Terrell, 41 AD3d 1044,1045 [2007]; see also People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185, 188-189 [2002]). Moreover, in ourview, the sentence imposed [*2]was not harsh and excessive.Accordingly, we affirm.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.


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.