People v. TejadaPeople v. Tejada
After a suitable inquiry, the court properly concluded that defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his plea agreement, and thus did not qualify for a more lenient disposition. Defendant received a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions and the court was able to make an informed determination. Under the express terms of the agreement, the only issue before the court was whether the People acted in bad faith, or in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in determining that defendant had failed to so comply (see People v Anonymous, 305 AD2d 156 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 578 [2003]). Defendant did not make a sufficient showing of bad faith to warrant a hearing, particularly since his claims were undermined by his own conflicting statements to the court.
Since nothing in the record casts doubt on defendant‘s mental competency, the court was not obligated to order a
We find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.