One of four men allegedly involved in a home-invasion burglary in October on Central Avenue, Batavia, was supposed to be sentenced on a guilty plea in that case, but it turns out there is a disagreement between the attorneys in the case on what exactly was in the plea deal given to Daniel J. Gilbert.
At the start of the hearing, District Attorney Lawrence Friedman told Judge Charles Zambito that the agreed upon sentence was a straight-up five years in prison (a determinate sentence).
Zambito turned to defense attorney Thomas Burns and asked, "is that your understanding?"
"That's not accurate," Burns said. "That's not our position at all."
Zambito asked if Burns wished to discuss the plea on the record and Burns said he did not, so Zambito called for a recess and met with the attorneys in chambers.
When he returned he said that Burns would be able to file a position paper with supporting citations, and Friedman would be given a chance to answer. Because of trial schedules and vacation schedules, Gilbert won't be back in county court for a hearing on the plea, and possible sentencing, until 11 a.m. on June 20.
Asked for more information outside of court on the particulars of the dispute, Friedman said he couldn't discuss it.
The cases for the other defendants, Oliver Thomas, Marquis Saddler and Adante Davis, are still pending.
I wonder if the original
I wonder if the original "agreed upon sentence" was in written form. Although I suppose it could happen, it's hard to imagine two attorneys having different conclusions of the same written agreement. But, I suppose, if you throw in enough where-to-as', heretofore's, and the like, it could happen.