People v Blackwell
2009 NY Slip Op 04077 [62 AD3d 896]
May 19, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 1, 2009


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

[*1]Stephen J. Pittari, White Plains, N.Y. (Ellen K. Pachnanda of counsel), for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Laurie Sapakoff, Richard LongworthHecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Molea, J.), rendered October 2, 2007, convicting her of assault in the first degree, upon her pleaof guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in exchange for an agreed-uponsentence. During the plea colloquy, the defendant stated she understood that one of theconditions of the plea agreement was that if she chose to answer the questions posed by theDepartment of Probation, she would do so truthfully and in a manner consistent with that whichshe told the court during the plea hearing. She also indicated she understood that if she violatedthis condition, the court would not allow her to withdraw her plea and would impose anenhanced sentence, up to the maximum allowed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, this condition was explicit, objective, and acceptedby the defendant (cf. People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185, 189 [2002]; People v Outley,80 NY2d 702 [1993]; People vButler, 49 AD3d 894, 895 [2008]). Moreover, her denial to the Department of Probationthat she had deliberately hurt her son, and her insistence that her only wrongdoing was herfailure to check the temperature of the bath [*2]water, were notconsistent with her plea of guilty, in which she stated that she had intended to cause seriousphysical injury to her son by placing him in the scalding water (cf. Penal Law §120.10 [1]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly imposed an enhanced sentence based onthe defendant's violation of the plea agreement.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Miller, Chambers andAustin, 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.