| People v Mays |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 02041 [181 AD3d 874] |
| March 25, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Samuel Mays, Appellant. |
Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (William C. Ghee of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered September 13, 2018, convicting him of assault inthe second degree and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In August 2017, the defendant entered into a plea agreement wherein he agreed toplead guilty to assault in the second degree and resisting arrest in exchange for a one-yearterm of interim probation. Pursuant to the agreement, if the defendant complied with allof the conditions of the interim probation, at the conclusion of the year, he would bepermitted to withdraw his plea to the felony count of assault in the second degree andwould receive a sentence of three years of probation on the misdemeanor count ofresisting arrest. If the defendant failed to comply with the conditions of the interimprobation, the plea to the felony count would remain and he would be subject to a term ofimprisonment of up to seven years followed by three years of postrelease supervision.Pursuant to the conditions of the interim probation, among other things, the defendantwas required to refrain from committing any additional crimes, offenses, or violations,and to participate in a drug and alcohol evaluation and comply with all recommendationsregarding treatment.
During the term of interim probation, the defendant was charged with violating theabove referenced conditions of his interim probation, and the County Court held ahearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that the defendant hadviolated the conditions of his interim probation and thereafter sentenced him to adeterminate term of imprisonment of six years followed by three years of postreleasesupervision. The defendant appeals.
We agree with the County Court's determination that the defendant violated certainconditions of his interim probation and its imposition of the alternative sentence of aterm of imprisonment. A sentencing court faced with an allegation that a defendantviolated a condition of a plea agreement must conduct an inquiry sufficient to satisfyitself that there is a legitimate basis for such a finding (see People v Fiammegta, 14NY3d 90, 98 [2010]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). Contraryto the defendant's contention, the court's determination that the defendant violated theconditions of his interim probation was supported by sufficient reliable and accurateinformation (see People vRollins, 50 AD3d 1535, 1536 [2008]; People v Delgado, 45 AD3d 496 [2007]). Since thedefendant was aware that he faced a sentence of imprisonment if he failed to complywith the terms of the plea agreement, upon its finding that the defendant failed tocomply, the court was within its discretion in imposing a six-year term of imprisonmentfollowed by a three-year term of postrelease supervision (see People v Marte, 85 AD3d945 [2011]; People vWhite, 3 AD3d 543, 544 [2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Austin, Millerand Duffy, JJ., concur.