People v. Frederickson, 36 N.Y.2d 231 (1975)

A prosecutor fulfills obligations under a plea agreement by recommending a specific sentence, even if the sentencing court does not follow that recommendation, provided there was no explicit promise by the court itself regarding sentencing.

Summary

Frederickson, a police detective under investigation for corruption, entered into a cooperation agreement with the District Attorney, promising information and testimony in exchange for a misdemeanor plea covering all charges and a recommendation of probation. After Frederickson cooperated, the trial court accepted his guilty plea but ultimately sentenced him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the District Attorney fulfilled the agreement by recommending probation, and the court’s decision to deviate from the recommendation did not violate the defendant’s rights, as long as the judge never committed to a specific sentence.

Facts

Frederickson, a Newburgh police detective, was a target in a corruption investigation. He negotiated a “cooperation agreement” with the District Attorney’s office. He agreed to provide information, testify before the grand jury, and waive immunity. In return, the DA agreed Frederickson could plead guilty to a misdemeanor to cover all pending charges (except homicide) and that the DA would recommend probation. At the time of the agreement, Frederickson hadn’t been formally charged. He was later indicted on 50 counts across 19 indictments, including burglary, larceny, perjury, and bribery. Frederickson complied with the agreement, providing information and testifying.

Procedural History

Frederickson applied to plead guilty to one count of petit larceny, a misdemeanor, as per the agreement. The trial court was reluctant, leading to a hearing regarding alleged additional commitments. The trial court ultimately accepted the plea but did not commit to the sentencing recommendation. Frederickson was sentenced to one year of imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the District Attorney’s recommendation of probation, as per the cooperation agreement, was the full extent of the promise, or whether additional promises (specifically concerning sentencing) were made, and if so, whether the trial court’s sentencing of imprisonment violated the agreement.

Holding

No, because the District Attorney fulfilled his obligations by recommending the agreed-upon sentence, and the trial court’s discretion in sentencing was not constrained by the agreement, absent an explicit promise from the court itself regarding the sentence.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the District Attorney had fulfilled his obligations under the agreement by consenting to the misdemeanor plea and recommending probation. The court distinguished between the acceptance of the plea and the sentencing, noting that sentencing involves the trial court’s discretion. The defendant could not object simply because the recommendation was not followed. The court stated, “As sentencing involves the exercise of discretion by the trial court, the defendant cannot now object merely because the District Attorney’s recommendation as to sentence was not followed by the court.” The court also noted conflicting testimony regarding whether the District Attorney represented that the judge had pre-approved the sentencing recommendation. The Court deferred to the lower courts’ findings that representations only related to the acceptance of the plea, not sentencing. Finally, the Court reiterated the importance of creating a clear record of all agreements and representations made during plea negotiations, citing People v. Selikoff. The Court emphasized having “as complete a record as possible of the agreements, promises and representations which have been made by either the prosecutor or by the judiciary and which have led to a guilty plea.”