People v Faulkner
2008 NY Slip Op 07049 [54 AD3d 1134]
September 25, 2008
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, October 29, 2008


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

[*1]Ralph Cherchian, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brett M. Knowles of counsel), forrespondent.

Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.),rendered April 9, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in thesecond degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with assault in thesecond degree with the understanding that, as long as he complied with the terms of the pleaagreement, he would be sentenced to four years in prison and three years of postreleasesupervision. At the time of sentencing, County Court found that defendant had violated theconditions of the plea agreement and, as a result, sentenced him to five years in prison and threeyears of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. To the extent that defendant contends that County Court's imposition of anenhanced sentence was illegal, although such a claim is not foreclosed by his waiver of the rightto appeal (see People v Baxter, 302 AD2d 950, 951 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d652 [2003]), our review of the record reveals that it is wholly without merit. Despite having beenexplicitly advised that he was required to answer the Probation Department's inquiries truthfullyand in a manner consistent with that which he told the court during the plea hearing, defendantgave the Probation Department an account of his criminal conduct which conflicted with what hehad stated in court. As such, County Court was free to impose an enhanced sentence (seePeople v [*2]Hicks, 98 NY2d 185, 189 [2002]). As fordefendant's assertion that the enhanced sentence was unduly harsh and excessive, his appealwaiver precludes him from making such a challenge where, as here, County Court advised him ofthe maximum potential sentence for noncompliance with the plea agreement (see People v Terrell, 41 AD3d1044, 1045 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.


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.