People v. Berger - Criminal Possession of Stolen Property

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 4th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a judgment convicting Robert Berger of attempted criminal possession of stolen property. The court upheld the imposition of an enhanced sentence due to the defendant's failure to appear for sentencing, which violated the terms of his plea agreement.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a judgment against Robert Berger, who was convicted of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. The appeal challenged the imposition of an enhanced sentence after Berger failed to appear for his scheduled sentencing, thereby violating his plea agreement. The court found that the defendant preserved his challenge and that the violation of an explicit plea condition, such as failure to appear, can validly result in an enhanced sentence, provided the court conducts an adequate inquiry.

This decision affirms the established legal principle that defendants who violate explicit plea conditions, including failure to appear for sentencing, may face enhanced sentences. For legal professionals and courts, this reinforces the importance of clearly defining and enforcing plea agreement terms. While this specific case affirms a prior judgment, it serves as a reminder of the consequences for defendants who do not adhere to their obligations under plea agreements, potentially leading to harsher sentences than initially promised.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Berger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01210
Docket Number: 2024-07473
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Berger (2026 NY Slip Op 01210)
| People v Berger |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01210 |
| Decided on March 4, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided on March 4, 2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LOURDES M. VENTURA
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
2024-07473

*[1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

Robert Berger, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 72183/23)**

Martha Krisel, New York, NY, for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Michael J. Balch and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, (Teresa K. Corrigan, J.), rendered July 8, 2024, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

In September 2023, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 165.52) in exchange for a promised sentence. As a condition of the plea, the County Court required the defendant to appear on the date of his sentencing. Based on the defendant's failure to appear for sentencing in December 2023, the court determined that the defendant had violated the terms of his plea agreement and imposed an enhanced sentence. The defendant appeals.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant preserved his challenge to the imposition of the enhanced sentence, since defense counsel "'made his position with respect to the ruling . . . known to the court'" (People v Martinez, 202 AD3d 828, 832, quoting CPL 470.05[2]).

"'Conditions imposed as part of a plea arrangement are valid if the parties agree to them and they do not violate any statute or contravene public policy'" (People v Volpe, 226 AD3d 708, 709, quoting People v Takie, 172 AD3d 1249, 1250). "Furthermore, '[i]t is well established that the violation of an explicit and objective plea condition that was accepted by the defendant can result in the imposition of an enhanced sentence'" (People v Martinez, 202 AD3d at 832, quoting People v Becker, 80 AD3d 795, 796). "[F]ailure to appear on a scheduled sentencing date in violation of a plea agreement may constitute a basis to impose an enhanced sentence" (People v Smith, 160 AD3d 664, 665). However, "[d]ue process requires that before imposing an enhanced sentence, the court conduct an inquiry sufficient for it to determine that the defendant indeed violated the plea condition" (People v Murdock, 175 AD3d 1560, 1561).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court's inquiry was sufficient to determine that the defendant had violated a condition of his plea agreement by failing to appear for sentencing (see People v Martinez, 235 AD3d 901, 902).

Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing the enhanced sentence (see People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185, 189).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court