From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Huertas

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 30, 1995
85 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. 1995)

Opinion

Submitted February 16, 1995

Decided March 30, 1995

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Frederic T. Henry, Jr., J.

Edward D. Czaja, Naples, for appellant.

R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney of Ontario County, Canandaigua (Jeffrey R. Taylor of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The alleged agreement between defendant and the prosecutor was never placed on the record or approved by the County Court Judge. Accordingly, defendant cannot now insist that the courts recognize or enforce it (see, People v Curdgel, 83 N.Y.2d 862, 864; People v Danny G., 61 N.Y.2d 169). Since his codefendant pleaded guilty before trial, it cannot be said that the People obtained any concrete benefit from defendant's agreement to testify against that individual. Defense counsel's claim that defendant's agreement to testify may have induced the codefendant to plead guilty is too speculative to warrant granting defendant the relief he seeks.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Huertas

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 30, 1995
85 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Huertas

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID HUERTAS…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 30, 1995

Citations

85 N.Y.2d 898 (N.Y. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 750
650 N.E.2d 408

Citing Cases

People v. Watford

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Since the alleged plea agreement the defendant seeks to enforce does…

People v. Stevens

In effect, he seeks to reinstate the initial plea offer. He is not entitled to that relief. Specific…