In People v. Hicks (98 N.Y.2d 185 [2002]) the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape in the first degree and was promised a sentence of 3 to 6 years on each count to run consecutively with each other. At the time of the plea, the court instructed the defendant and the defendant agreed that he would "truthfully answer all questions asked of him by the Court and the Probation Department" (at 187). The defendant was further notified that if he violated that condition, the sentencing court was not bound by its promise with respect to sentence and an enhanced sentence could be forthcoming. The defendant admitted to the court that he had sexual intercourse with the two children involved. During his interview with Probation however, he denied his guilt. He said he never touched either of the children. The trial court gave him enhanced sentences of 10 to 20 years on each count to run consecutively with each other. The Appellate Division reversed the convictions. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division and remanded the case to them for imposition of sentence consistent with its ruling. Among the things stated by the Court in its decision are the following: "Conditions agreed upon as part of a plea bargain are generally enforceable, unless violative of a statute or public policy A sentencing promise in conjunction with a plea is conditioned upon its being lawful and appropriate in light of the presentence report or information obtained from other reliable sources." (Supra at 188.) The Court went on to discuss the importance of the presentence investigation. It stated, "The investigation supporting the presentence report includes the gathering of a wide variety of information--including a criminal, social, employment, family, economic, educational and personal history of the defendant; information with respect to the circumstances attending the commission of the offense; and other information that the court directs to be included or is otherwise deemed relevant to the question of sentence." (Supra at 188-189.) The Court went on to state that several considerations supported the Court's enhancement of the defendant's sentence. It held that there was nothing subjective about the particular issue in the case. The court's condition was explicit, objective and accepted by the defendant and concededly breached. The Court of Appeals further stated that the "sentence enhancement based on defendant's violation of the condition, moreover, did not violate any statute or public policy. The defendant's failure to answer the Probation Department truthfully about his crime hindered the preparation of an accurate report for the court's use at sentencing. Finally, as the sentencing court noted, the acceptance of responsibility for a sexual offense is a step towards rehabilitation In short, the result we reach in this case is premised on the nature of the defendant's breached promise and its pertinence to his sentence. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is reversed and the case is remitted to the Appellate Division." (Supra at 189.)