People v. Rivera, 85 N.Y.2d 840 (1995)
A court may impose an enhanced sentence when a defendant violates the conditions of a plea agreement, such as failing to appear for sentencing, without needing to conduct a hearing regarding subsequent arrests if the violation of the plea agreement provides an independent, legally valid basis for the enhanced sentence.
Summary
Rivera pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree in exchange for a promised sentence and temporary release, contingent on returning for sentencing, avoiding rearrest, and cooperating with probation. Rivera failed to appear for sentencing and was later arrested on two felonies. The Supreme Court denied Rivera’s motion to withdraw his plea and imposed an enhanced sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Rivera’s failure to appear violated the plea agreement, justifying the enhanced sentence without requiring a hearing on the post-plea arrests. The independent violation removed the need for an inquiry under People v. Outley.
Facts
The defendant, Rivera, pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree. As part of the plea agreement, the Supreme Court promised to sentence him to 2 1/2 to 5 years in prison and temporarily release him on his own recognizance. This promise was contingent on Rivera meeting three conditions: (1) returning to court for sentencing in six weeks; (2) not being rearrested during that six-week period; and (3) cooperating with the Probation Department’s presentence investigation. The Supreme Court warned Rivera that failing to meet any of these conditions would void the plea agreement and allow the court to impose a sentence of 7 1/2 to 15 years.
Rivera failed to appear in court on the scheduled sentencing date, leading to the issuance of a bench warrant. When Rivera was brought back to court on the warrant, the People informed the court that Rivera had been arrested on two new felony charges during his presentence release. The Supreme Court ordered Rivera held without bail pending sentencing.
Procedural History
Rivera moved to withdraw his guilty plea, but the Supreme Court denied the motion, emphasizing the clarity of the plea agreement colloquy. The court then imposed an enhanced sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The case then went before the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Supreme Court was required to afford the defendant an opportunity to challenge the foundation of his post-plea arrests in accordance with People v. Outley, before imposing an enhanced sentence based on his violation of the plea agreement by failing to appear for sentencing.
Holding
No, because the defendant’s failure to appear in court on the scheduled sentencing date constituted a violation of the plea agreement, providing an independent and legally valid basis for the enhanced sentence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that Rivera’s failure to appear for sentencing constituted a violation of the plea agreement. This violation, in itself, was a sufficient and independent basis for the Supreme Court to impose an enhanced sentence, thus negating the need for a People v. Outley inquiry into the foundation of the post-plea arrests. The court cited People v. Avery, People v. Seaberg, and People v. Selikoff to support the principle that a court is no longer bound by a plea promise when a defendant violates the plea agreement.
The court distinguished this case from People v. Outley, where a hearing is required to determine the validity of post-plea arrests when the enhanced sentence is based solely on those arrests. Here, the enhanced sentence was justified by Rivera’s independent violation of the plea agreement by failing to appear, making a separate inquiry into the arrests unnecessary. The court reasoned that the