In People v Backus (2008 NY Slip Op 08772 [4th Dept 11/14/2008)] the defendant won on his claim that the consecutive sentence imposed was illegal. However, a panel of the Fourth Department divided 3-2 as to the appropriate remedy, with the majority holding that on remitter of the matter to County Court to resentence defendant the court should "entertain a motion by the People, should the People be so disposed, to vacate the plea and set aside the conviction in its entirety." Not so good for Mr. Backus.

Specifically, Backus appealed from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of vehicular assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.03 [1]) and one count of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), and sentencing him to two one-year concurrent definite terms for vehicular assault, and a one-year definite term for driving while intoxicated, to be served consecutively. Since the offense of driving while intoxicated is a material element of the offense of vehicular assault in the second degree and thus the sentence was illegal insofar as County Court imposed consecutive sentences. As set forth below the two dissenting Justices would have corrected the illegality by ordering the sentences to run concurrently:

As noted by the majority, the sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, but we have in the past modified a judgment on the ground that the bargained-for sentence was illegal because consecutive sentences were not permissible and have directed that the sentences run concurrently (see People v Taylor, 197 AD2d 858). There is no sentence that the court could impose here that would result in the bargained-for sentence, i.e., two one-year definite terms of imprisonment. Defendant has already served a one-year definite term and, "when the court has imposed a sentence of imprisonment and such sentence is in accordance with law, such sentence may not be changed, suspended or interrupted once the term or period of the sentence has commenced" (CPL 430.10). Although it is implicit in CPL 430.10 that a court has the power to correct an illegal sentence even if the defendant has begun serving it, a court may not alter a sentence that "is in accordance with law" once it is being served (id.; see People v Carpenter, 19 AD3d 730, 732, lv denied 5 NY3d 804). In our view, the illegality of the sentence was in directing the one-year definite sentence for driving while intoxicated to run consecutively to the one-year concurrent definite sentences for vehicular assault (see People v Davis, 12 AD3d 237, 238). That defect is corrected by directing that the sentences run concurrently (see id.).

In People v Backus (2008 NY Slip Op 08772 [4th Dept 11/14/2008)] the defendant won on his claim that the consecutive sentence imposed was illegal. However, a panel of the Fourth Department divided 3-2 as to the appropriate remedy, with the majority holding that on remitter of the matter to County Court to resentence defendant the court should "entertain a motion by the People, should the People be so disposed, to vacate the plea and set aside the conviction in its entirety." Not so good for Mr. Backus.

Specifically, Backus appealed from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of vehicular assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.03 [1]) and one count of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), and sentencing him to two one-year concurrent definite terms for vehicular assault, and a one-year definite term for driving while intoxicated, to be served consecutively. Since the offense of driving while intoxicated is a material element of the offense of vehicular assault in the second degree and thus the sentence was illegal insofar as County Court imposed consecutive sentences. As set forth below the two dissenting Justices would have corrected the illegality by ordering the sentences to run concurrently:

As noted by the majority, the sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, but we have in the past modified a judgment on the ground that the bargained-for sentence was illegal because consecutive sentences were not permissible and have directed that the sentences run concurrently (see People v Taylor, 197 AD2d 858). There is no sentence that the court could impose here that would result in the bargained-for sentence, i.e., two one-year definite terms of imprisonment. Defendant has already served a one-year definite term and, "when the court has imposed a sentence of imprisonment and such sentence is in accordance with law, such sentence may not be changed, suspended or interrupted once the term or period of the sentence has commenced" (CPL 430.10). Although it is implicit in CPL 430.10 that a court has the power to correct an illegal sentence even if the defendant has begun serving it, a court may not alter a sentence that "is in accordance with law" once it is being served (id.; see People v Carpenter, 19 AD3d 730, 732, lv denied 5 NY3d 804). In our view, the illegality of the sentence was in directing the one-year definite sentence for driving while intoxicated to run consecutively to the one-year concurrent definite sentences for vehicular assault (see People v Davis, 12 AD3d 237, 238). That defect is corrected by directing that the sentences run concurrently (see id.).

What constitutes a prompt outcry permitting the admission of hearsayis a relative concept dependent on the facts. In People v Workman (2008 NY Slip Op 08801 [4th Dept 11/18/08]) the Court held that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of the boyfriend of the victim concerning her disclosure of the sexual abuse two years after the last incident of abuse. The court admitted the testimony as a prompt outcry, inasmuch as "evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place" (People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16). The Court held that

the victim's disclosure in this case was not prompt. As noted, the victim made the disclosure two years after the last incident of abuse, and the record establishes that she had been living away from defendant for a period of time before making the disclosure and had not received any threats that prevented her from disclosing the abuse.

This erroneous admission was held to be harmless because his testimony mirrored evidence [that was] disclosed to the jury without objection.

On a brighter note for Mr. Workman, the Court, sua sponte, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75 (1) (a). That Penal Law section requires evidence that, over at least a three-month period, defendant engaged "in two or more acts of sexual conduct, which includes at least one act of sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct or aggravated sexual contact, with a child [*2]less than eleven years old . . . ." The Court explained that there was no evidence that defendant engaged in any act other than forcible touching before the victim was 11 years old and that the conviction on that count, thus, must be reversed.

What constitutes a prompt outcry permitting the admission of hearsayis a relative concept dependent on the facts. In People v Workman (2008 NY Slip Op 08801 [4th Dept 11/18/08]) the Court held that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of the boyfriend of the victim concerning her disclosure of the sexual abuse two years after the last incident of abuse. The court admitted the testimony as a prompt outcry, inasmuch as "evidence that a victim of sexual assault promptly complained about the incident is admissible to corroborate the allegation that an assault took place" (People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16). The Court held that

the victim's disclosure in this case was not prompt. As noted, the victim made the disclosure two years after the last incident of abuse, and the record establishes that she had been living away from defendant for a period of time before making the disclosure and had not received any threats that prevented her from disclosing the abuse.

This erroneous admission was held to be harmless because his testimony mirrored evidence [that was] disclosed to the jury without objection.

On a brighter note for Mr. Workman, the Court, sua sponte, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75 (1) (a). That Penal Law section requires evidence that, over at least a three-month period, defendant engaged "in two or more acts of sexual conduct, which includes at least one act of sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct or aggravated sexual contact, with a child [*2]less than eleven years old . . . ." The Court explained that there was no evidence that defendant engaged in any act other than forcible touching before the victim was 11 years old and that the conviction on that count, thus, must be reversed.

In People v Young(94 NY2d 171) the defendant had originally received an aggregate sentence of 45 years to life, including a sentence of 2-4 years on a count of criminal possession of stolen property. On retrial he was acquitted of a all counts other than the stolen property charge for which he was sentenced, as a persistent felon, to 25 years to life. This increase from 2-4 years to 25 years to life was held not to be presumptively vindictive.

The Young Court held that in determining whether the presumption of vindictiveness applies to a sentence imposed after a retrial,where a defendant receives a lesser over-all sentence following retrial, but a greater sentence on an individual count

the presumption arises only if the circumstances evince a reasonable likelihood that the greater sentence on the individual count was the result of vindictiveness (citations omitted). While trial courts in New York are required to impose discrete sentences for each individual count (see, CPL 380.20), we cannot ignore the reality that, in cases involving multiple counts, trial courts may view the individual sentences as part of an integrated whole. A trial court fashions its sentence on a “delicate balancing” of factors, including the defendant's background, criminal history and prospects for rehabilitation, in order to achieve a sentence that is appropriate both for the defendant and for the specific crimes of which the defendant was convicted(Citation omitted. Where, as here, a trial court adjusts the original sentence after retrial in order to reflect that balance, a presumption of vindictiveness will not arise.

Citing Young, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in People v Rogers (2008 NY Slip Op 08827 [4th Dept 11/14/08], found that the presumption of vindictiveness applied under facts very similar to those in Young.

Following his first trial, Mr. Rogers was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years on the robbery count and an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life on the murder count, but he was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years on the robbery count following the retrial. The Court held that

"The threshold issue in evaluating whether a resentence is vindictive is whether the resentence is more severe than that originally imposed" (People v Cahill, 46 AD3d 1455, 1456; see generally People v Young, 94 NY2d 171, 176-177, rearg denied 94 NY2d 876; People v Van Pelt, 76 NY2d 156, 159-160), and a determinate sentence of 25 years is of course more severe than one of 20 years. Other factors that give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness are that the court imposed a greater sentence following the retrial despite the absence of any new information concerning defendant (see Van Pelt, 76 NY2d at 161), and, although defendant was acquitted of the murder count, the court stated at sentencing that it "felt constrained to impose the sentence because a death was involved." We further conclude that "[t]he record is devoid of any objective information sufficient to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness that arose from the court's imposition of a sentence greater than that imposed after the initial conviction" (People v Jenkins, 38 AD3d 566, 567-568, lv denied 8 NY3d 986).

It is difficult to discern which facts distinguish Rogers from Young.

In People v Young(94 NY2d 171) the defendant had originally received an aggregate sentence of 45 years to life, including a sentence of 2-4 years on a count of criminal possession of stolen property. On retrial he was acquitted of a all counts other than the stolen property charge for which he was sentenced, as a persistent felon, to 25 years to life. This increase from 2-4 years to 25 years to life was held not to be presumptively vindictive.

The Young Court held that in determining whether the presumption of vindictiveness applies to a sentence imposed after a retrial,where a defendant receives a lesser over-all sentence following retrial, but a greater sentence on an individual count

the presumption arises only if the circumstances evince a reasonable likelihood that the greater sentence on the individual count was the result of vindictiveness (citations omitted). While trial courts in New York are required to impose discrete sentences for each individual count (see, CPL 380.20), we cannot ignore the reality that, in cases involving multiple counts, trial courts may view the individual sentences as part of an integrated whole. A trial court fashions its sentence on a “delicate balancing” of factors, including the defendant's background, criminal history and prospects for rehabilitation, in order to achieve a sentence that is appropriate both for the defendant and for the specific crimes of which the defendant was convicted(Citation omitted. Where, as here, a trial court adjusts the original sentence after retrial in order to reflect that balance, a presumption of vindictiveness will not arise.

Citing Young, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in People v Rogers (2008 NY Slip Op 08827 [4th Dept 11/14/08], found that the presumption of vindictiveness applied under facts very similar to those in Young.

Following his first trial, Mr. Rogers was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years on the robbery count and an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life on the murder count, but he was sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years on the robbery count following the retrial. The Court held that

"The threshold issue in evaluating whether a resentence is vindictive is whether the resentence is more severe than that originally imposed" (People v Cahill, 46 AD3d 1455, 1456; see generally People v Young, 94 NY2d 171, 176-177, rearg denied 94 NY2d 876; People v Van Pelt, 76 NY2d 156, 159-160), and a determinate sentence of 25 years is of course more severe than one of 20 years. Other factors that give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness are that the court imposed a greater sentence following the retrial despite the absence of any new information concerning defendant (see Van Pelt, 76 NY2d at 161), and, although defendant was acquitted of the murder count, the court stated at sentencing that it "felt constrained to impose the sentence because a death was involved." We further conclude that "[t]he record is devoid of any objective information sufficient to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness that arose from the court's imposition of a sentence greater than that imposed after the initial conviction" (People v Jenkins, 38 AD3d 566, 567-568, lv denied 8 NY3d 986).

It is difficult to discern which facts distinguish Rogers from Young.

What Must Be Shown For A Defendant To Be Entitled To Specific Performance Of A Plea Agreement?

In People v Jenkins (2008 NY Slip Op 07992 [10/23/08]) the Court of Appeals considered who has to prove what in order for a defendant to be entitled to specific compliance of a plea agreement. Specifically who has has the burden of proof of compliance or non-compliance and what does that burden entail? Under what circumstances can a court add additional terms to a plea agreement? By a 6-1 vote, the Court upheld the addition of a term to the plea agreement in a case in which dissenting Judge Pigott writes that

the People did not contest defendant's claim that he was entitled to have the charges dismissed, let alone establish that he was not, nor did the court make such a finding. Indeed, the People never even argued in Supreme Court, the Appellate Division or to this Court that, as of October 2001, defendant had not complied with the terms and conditions of the plea agreement. Rather, the People have consistently argued that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in requiring defendant to participate in further services.

Mr. Jenkins pleaded guilty to a drug charge pursuant to a plea agreement permitting him to avoid incarceration upon (1) completing an 18- to 24-month residential drug treatment program at Veritas Therapeutic Community, a Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, and completing its aftercare or live-out treatment; (2) completing vocational training including obtaining a General Equivalency Diploma (GED); (3) securing full-time employment and (4) finding "suitable" housing. The plea agreement additionally required defendant to make every court appearance and not be rearrested. The agremtn was that the prosecutor would join in an application for dismissal of the charge upon Jenkins' complettion of these conditions.
Veritas provided regular updates to the court, culminating in letter, two years after the plea, in which Veritas wrote to the court that defendant has completed the two drug treatments programs, has obtained employment. But Vertias also wrote that Jenkins has "unresolved family issues" that would create further problems, if not addressed.
Jenkins moved for dismissal of the charges, alleging compliance with the conditions. The People did not join in, saying that they had not received documentary proof regarding the educational and employment conditions and requested an adjournment to provide the defendant time to submit documentation. The dissent points out that

the court conducted no inquiry and, presumably, made no determination as to whether defendant had, in fact, met all of the conditions of the plea agreement. Significantly, the People made no claim that defendant had not successfully completed the program. Rather, the People requested two to three weeks to respond and sought defendant's cooperation in providing certain documents. The court held an off-the-record discussion at the bench. What exactly was said during this discussion is unknown, but it caused defense counsel to withdraw the motion. What is known is that the parties talked about the "unresolved family issues" identified in the October 11th Veritas letter and that the court adjourned the matter to look into getting defendant "some other support services." Defendant voiced his objection stating, among other things, that he "completed everything there is to complete in this program.

The majority of the Court holds that having withdrawn the motion

Under these circumstances, where defendant had failed to provide satisfactory proof that he completed all of the conditions of his agreement, the People were entitled to an adjournment and not required to join in the motion to dismiss. Neither was Supreme Court compelled to "turn a blind eye" and dismiss this case in the furtherance of justice. To be sure, Supreme Court could not pass favorably on defendant's Clayton motion without evidentiary support demonstrating that he had complied with the terms of the agreement as CPL 210.40 requires the court to articulate on which factors it relies in dismissing an indictment. Affording the trial court this discretion does not, as the dissent maintains, improperly shift the burden of proof from the People to defendant.

By contrast, Judge Pigott, in dissent writes that

Clearly, it was Supreme Court's duty to make sufficient inquiry, at the time of the motion, as to whether defendant had complied with the terms of the plea agreement. I disagree with the majority that defendant's failure to provide documentation regarding the successful completion of the program excused such inquiry by the court; to so hold improperly shifts the burden of proof from the People to the defendant to prove his compliance with the plea agreement- something we have never done. But even assuming the burden was on the defendant, the facts found in this record seem to support his claim. The Court had in its possession monthly progress reports from Veritas, as well as the October 11th letter, indicating that defendant had successfully completed the program: a determination that Veritas was to make under the plea agreement. What remained for the court to determine was whether OSN had approved of his housing and whether defendant had committed any new crimes. The October 11th Veritas letter confirmed that defendant had been residing with his family. OSN never objected to defendant's housing nor his compliance with any of the other terms of the plea agreement during his ]treatment. Indeed, OSN only objected to his housing on October 23, 2001, two weeks after the return date, and the objection was conditional, i.e. defendant had to find another residence if his girlfriend did not attend treatment meetings.
Further, in my view, while well intentioned, Supreme Court erred in adjourning the matter to determine whether family counseling was needed for defendant, and also erred in imposing family counseling as a condition.