People v Sprague
2011 NY Slip Op 02224 [82 AD3d 1649]
March 25, 2011
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011


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

[*1]Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Janet C. Somes of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Alvis D. Sprague, defendant-appellant pro se.

Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Stephen X. O'Brien of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered June5, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the thirddegree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grandlarceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]), defendant contends in his pro sesupplemental brief that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without affordinghim an opportunity to withdraw his plea. That contention is not preserved for our review becausedefendant did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw the plea or tovacate the judgment of conviction (seePeople v Fortner, 23 AD3d 1058 [2005]; People v Sundown, 305 AD2d 1075[2003]). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. "When a defendant violates a conditionof the plea agreement, the court is no longer bound by the agreement and is free to impose agreater sentence without offering [the] defendant an opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea"(People v Santiago, 269 AD2d 770, 770 [2000]; see People v Figgins, 87 NY2d840 [1995]; People v Cato, 226 AD2d 1066 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 877[1996]). The record establishes that defendant was clearly informed of the consequences of hisfailure to appear at sentencing and the date on which sentencing was scheduled, and henevertheless failed to appear on that date. The remaining contentions of defendant in his pro sesupplemental brief are without merit. Contrary to the contention of defendant in his main brief,the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley andGorski, JJ.


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.