People v. Danny, 50 N.Y.2d 746 (1980)
When a prosecutor promises not to take a position at sentencing as part of a plea agreement, any remarks that implicitly convey the People’s position regarding the appropriate punishment constitute a breach of that agreement.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a prosecutor violated a plea agreement where they promised not to take a position at sentencing but then made remarks characterizing the case as “very very serious” and highlighting the defendant’s flight and perjury. The Court reasoned that these remarks implicitly conveyed a request for a substantial prison term, breaching the agreement. The Court ordered resentencing before a different judge, finding that vacating the guilty plea would be unduly prejudicial to the People after a significant amount of time had passed and the trial was nearly completed.
Facts
The defendant was charged with attempted murder and related offenses. He proceeded to trial, but after summations, he pleaded guilty to attempted murder and criminal possession of a weapon in full satisfaction of the indictment. As part of the plea bargain, the prosecutor promised not to take any position at sentencing, and this promise was placed on the record.
Procedural History
The defendant was initially tried before a jury. After summations, he entered a guilty plea. At sentencing, the prosecutor made remarks that the defense argued violated the plea agreement. The Appellate Division’s order was modified by the Court of Appeals; the sentence was vacated, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing before a different judge.
Issue(s)
Whether a prosecutor’s remarks at sentencing, characterizing the case as “very very serious” and noting the defendant’s flight and perjury, constitute a breach of a plea agreement where the prosecutor promised not to take any position at sentencing.
Holding
Yes, because the prosecutor’s remarks implicitly conveyed the People’s position as to the appropriate punishment, which is tantamount to a request for a substantial prison term and violates the promise not to take any position at sentencing.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on Santobello v. New York, which established that a prosecutor must adhere to a promise made as a condition of a guilty plea. The Court reasoned that the prosecutor’s remarks went beyond a mere introduction and implicitly conveyed the People’s position on sentencing. The court emphasized that the impact of the breach on the actual sentence is irrelevant when determining the appropriate remedy. The Court found that resentencing before a different judge was sufficient to remedy the breach, as it would give the defendant the benefit of his bargain without unduly prejudicing the People. The court noted that vacating the guilty plea would be prejudicial to the People because they relied on the plea to their detriment by abandoning efforts to obtain a jury verdict after a two-week trial and closing arguments. The court referenced that the prosecutor’s few remarks, characterizing the case as “very very serious” and noting appellant’s flight and perjury, were tantamount to a request for a substantial prison term, in derogation of the People’s promise.