In People v. Danny G, 61 N.Y.2d 169 (1984) the prosecution made a recommendation to the court regarding the sentence the defendant would receive in exchange for his plea of guilty and testifying for the prosecution at the trial of an accomplice. The record revealed that the court accepted the prosecution's recommendation and the defendant plead guilty with the prosecutor's recommendation being the sentence promised to the defendant upon his guilty plea. When the defendant came before the court to be sentenced, the court, citing several reasons, informed the parties that it was going to sentence the defendant to a greater sentence than that previously agreed to in open court. The court stated that he had warned defense counsel, prior to the defendant testifying for the prosecution, that the court would not be bound by its promise if information contained in the probation report indicated that a harsher sentence was more appropriate. Defense counsel disputed the existence of the warning. The Court of Appeals found that since the warning was not reflected in the minutes of any proceeding, the warning was not entitled to judicial recognition and therefore, the defendant should have been sentenced to the promise that was set forth in the minutes of the defendant's guilty plea.