The court's Sandoval ruling, including its meticulous warning to defendant as to the circumstances under which his testimony would open the door to otherwise precluded inquiry, balanced the proper factors and was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203; People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458-459; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). The court appropriately determined that in the event defendant testified that he entered into plea agreements on prior cases because he was, in fact, guilty, and suggested that his decision to go to trial on the instant case implied his innocence, the prosecutor would be allowed to elicit the underlying facts of his prior crimes (see People v. Cooper, 92 N.Y.2d 968). The strength of the prior cases was highly relevant to the issue of defendant's actual motivation for pleading guilty.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.