the presentence report or any other circumstance relied upon for its changed view. Selikoff, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d at 792 (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (finding court correctly refused to impose original terms of plea agreement after discovering defendant was actually a principal, not a pawn, in a fraudulent scheme, and holding that, defendant’s refusal to withdraw his plea did not entitle him to specific performance of original plea agreement). Defendant is entitled .to specific performance of a plea agreement only where it can be shown that he or she relied on the original promise to his or her detriment. Reliance may include cooperating with authorities or testifying against a co-defendant. People v. Danny G., 61 N.Y.2d 169, 473 N.Y.S.2d 131, 461 N.E.2d 268, 271 (1984) (<HOLDING>); People v. Hams, 661 N.Y.S.2d 817
holding specific performance of plea agreement proper remedy where defendant testified against all of his coconspirators and where court later unilaterally breached original plea agreement by imposing a ninety day term of incarceration in addition to sentence of probation that had been earlier agreed to without first providing1 defendant with opportunity to withdraw plea on the record holding that if a plea agreement is breached the district court may either grant specific performance or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea holding that a defendant who is allowed to withdraw his plea must either withdraw his plea to all charges or to none when his plea to all charges was part of an agreement with the state holding defendants refusal to withdraw plea when afforded opportunity by sentencing court which had reviewed presentence report and found terms of plea deal inappropriate was not entitled to specific performance of original plea holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement