Appeals from judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Georgia Tschiember, J.), rendered October 29, 2004. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of endangering the welfare of a child and custodial interference.

On court's own motion, appeals consolidated for purposes of disposition.

Judgments of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The issues raised on these appeals concern the propriety of the sentences imposed. Defendant argues that the sentencing court should not have imposed sex
offender conditions of probation. "It is a basic principle of our law that 'a guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored'" (People v Torres, 45 NY2d 751, 753 [1978]). Herein, defendant negotiated a plea to two class A misdemeanors in exchange for a promised sentence of a maximum 60-day term of incarceration and three years' probation. He subsequently pleaded guilty to those misdemeanors and was given said sentence, which included sex offender conditions of probation of which he had not been previously advised. Defense counsel objected to said conditions, which defendant refused to sign, and moved to vacate the plea. The court denied such motion. Defendant has completed his term of [*2]incarceration and a stay is in effect in regard to the sex offender conditions of probation.

The power of the court to impose probation conditions is statutory (see Penal Law § 65.10), and defendant should have been well aware that some sort of condition would be imposed. During plea negotiations, defense counsel made no comments regarding any probation conditions that would be unacceptable to defendant as part of his sentence. The sentencing court also had the discretion to consider defendant's prior criminal history, including crimes for which he was never tried or convicted (People v Cunningham, 153 AD2d 700 [1989]). A review of the record indicates that sex offender conditions are reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation, reasonably necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life, and necessary to prevent his future incarceration (see Penal Law § 65.10 [1], [2], [5]; People v Wahl, 302 AD2d 976 [2003]). Since defendant received his legal, negotiated pleas, we find that his motion to vacate said pleas was properly denied. Defendant's remaining contentions are similarly lacking in merit.

In regard to defendant's contention that the sex offender conditions interfere with his constitutionally protected parental right to supervise and rear his minor children, leave is granted to him, if he be so advised, to seek relief therefrom in the court below (see CPL 410.20 [1]; People v Myatt, 248 AD2d 68, 71-72 [1998]; People v LaCoude, 193 Misc 2d 578 [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists 2002]).
Decision Date: October 20, 2005