Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Tindle
Citations: 61 N.Y.2d 752; 460 N.E.2d 1354; 472 N.Y.S.2d 919; 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4040
Court: New York Court of Appeals; January 16, 1984; New York; State Supreme Court
The Appellate Division's order is modified to vacate the appellant's sentence and remand the case to the Supreme Court, New York County, for re-sentencing by a different judge. The appellant was charged with attempted murder and related offenses and, after a jury trial, pled guilty as part of a plea bargain where the prosecution promised not to recommend a sentence. During sentencing, the prosecutor's comments about the seriousness of the case and the appellant's actions, including flight and perjury, breached this promise, as established in Santobello v. New York, which mandates adherence to such promises when they are a condition of a guilty plea. The court found that the prosecutor's remarks, though framed as an introduction, implicitly sought a more severe sentence, violating the agreed terms. The court determined that the breach did not require allowing the appellant to withdraw his guilty plea, as he could still benefit from his bargain through re-sentencing. The court declined to vacate the guilty plea after six years, noting that doing so would unduly prejudice the prosecution, which had relied on the plea. The judges concurred, with one judge not participating. The modified order directs the case to be re-sentenced in line with the court's findings and affirms the modified order. The defense counsel's failure to renew the objection post-remarks was deemed inconsequential since the objection was timely made before the prosecutor spoke.