| People v Takie |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 04007 [172 AD3d 1249] |
| May 22, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Mohammed R. Takie, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DeborahStevens Modica, J.), rendered June 30, 2016, convicting him of attempted murder in the seconddegree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree in exchange for theSupreme Court's promise that it would sentence him to a specified determinate prison term. As acondition of the court's promised sentence, the defendant was required to answer the questionsposed by the Department of Probation truthfully and in a manner consistent with what he told thecourt during the plea proceedings. Thereafter, based on statements made by the defendant duringhis interview with the Department of Probation, the court conducted a hearing, determined thatthe defendant breached the terms of his plea agreement, and imposed an enhanced sentence. Thedefendant appeals.
"Conditions imposed as part of a plea arrangement are valid if the parties agree to them andthey do not violate any statute or contravene public policy" (People v Avery, 85 NY2d503, 507 [1995]). "An enhanced sentence may be imposed on a defendant who, in violation of anexpress condition of a plea agreement, has failed to truthfully answer questions during aprobation department interview" (Peoplev Guzman-Hernandez, 135 AD3d 957, 957 [2016]; see People v Hicks, 98NY2d 185 [2002]; People vPatterson, 106 AD3d 757, 757 [2013]; People v Bragg, 96 AD3d 1071, 1071-1072 [2012]).
Here, the record of the plea proceedings established that the defendant clearly acknowledged,understood, and accepted the conditions imposed, including that his statement during hisprobation interview be truthful and consistent with his statements at the plea proceedings (see People v Butler, 49 AD3d 894,895 [2008]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, he gave the Department of Probation anaccount of his criminal conduct which conflicted with what he had stated in court. At the pleaproceedings, the defendant admitted under oath that he intended to kill the victim and attemptedto do so by cutting her with a knife. In contrast, during the interview with the Department ofProbation, the defendant stated that he had "blacked out" and was only told after he awoke in thehospital that he had injured the victim. Critically, the defendant never admitted during hisinterview that he cut the victim with a knife. Under these circumstances, the court was not boundby its original promise, and we agree with its determination imposing an enhanced sentence(see People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185 [2002]; People v Guzman-Hernandez, 135 AD3d 957 [2016]; People v Bragg, 96 AD3d 1071[2012]; People v Butler, 49 AD3d894 [2008]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Mastro, J.P., Maltese, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.