People v. LegettePeople v. Legette
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered based on the failure to inform him, at the plea proceeding, that his sentence would include restitution and a fine. Preliminarily, we note that these contentions survive the defendant’s otherwise valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Niedwieski, 100 AD3d 1023 [2012]; People v Isaacs, 71 AD3d 1161 [2010]), and are not subject to the preservation requirement since the Supreme Court did not give the
The Supreme Court erred in enhancing the defendant’s sentence with restitution and a fine that were not part of his negotiated plea agreement (see People v Pettress, 109 AD3d 555, 556 [2013]; People v Poznanski, 105 AD3d 775, 776 [2013]; People v Rossetti, 55 AD3d 637 [2008]). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court. Upon remittal, the court should consider whether to impose the sentence called for in the plea agreement (see People v Molinaro, 126 AD3d at 727; People v Rossetti, 55 AD3d 637 [2008]). If the court decides not to impose that sentence, then it must give the defendant an opportunity either to withdraw his plea of guilty or to accept a sentence including restitution and a fine (see People v Molinaro, 126 AD3d at 727; People v Patterson, 123 AD3d 946 [2014]; People v Fulton, 238 AD2d 439, 440 [1997]). In the event that the defendant chooses to accept a sentence which includes restitution, the court must first hold a hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution (see
Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.