In Matter of Crooms v. Corriero (206 AD2d 275, 614 N.Y.S.2d 511 [1st Dept 1994]), the petitioner was granted a writ of prohibition against the Supreme Court Justice who vacated, on its own motion, the petitioner's guilty plea in the criminal action, which the court had previously accepted. The petitioner had pleaded guilty to the crime of Robbery in the Second Degree under count six of the indictment against him, and the Assistant District Attorney had acknowledged satisfaction with the allocution. The court had accepted the plea in return for a promised sentence of 3 to 10 years, and adjourned the matter for sentencing. At sentencing, a different Assistant District Attorney objected to the negotiated plea on the ground that the terms of the plea offer also required the petitioner to plead guilty to an additional count of sexual abuse. The court vacated the plea on its own motion. The Appellate Division granted a writ of prohibition, stating, "In the absence of fraud, once a court accepts a guilty plea, it has no inherent power to set aside the plea without the defendant's consent" (Matter of Crooms, 206 AD2d at 277.)