MILLS, DENNIS J., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MILLS, DENNIS J., PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 23, 2011

DocketKA 09-02656

StatusPublished

This text of MILLS, DENNIS J., PEOPLE v (MILLS, DENNIS J., PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MILLS, DENNIS J., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1290 KA 09-02656 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENNIS MILLS, ALSO KNOWN AS DENNIS J. MILLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered September 2, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while ability impaired.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a]) and driving while intoxicated (§ 1192 [3]), defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his arrest for a new offense following the entry of his plea and prior to sentencing. By failing to object to the enhanced sentence or to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, however, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Sprague, 82 AD3d 1649, lv denied 17 NY3d 801; People v Magliocco, 78 AD3d 1648, lv denied 16 NY3d 798). In any event, because defendant did not deny that he committed the new offense or otherwise challenge the validity of his postplea arrest, the court was not obligated to conduct an inquiry to determine whether there was a lawful basis for the new arrest before imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Hendrix, 62 AD3d 1261, lv denied 12 NY3d 925; People v Huggins, 45 AD3d 1380, lv denied 9 NY3d 1006; see generally People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1290 KA 09-02656 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENNIS MILLS, ALSO KNOWN AS DENNIS J. MILLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered September 2, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while ability impaired.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a]) and driving while intoxicated (§ 1192 [3]), defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his arrest for a new offense following the entry of his plea and prior to sentencing. By failing to object to the enhanced sentence or to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, however, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Sprague, 82 AD3d 1649, lv denied 17 NY3d 801; People v Magliocco, 78 AD3d 1648, lv denied 16 NY3d 798). In any event, because defendant did not deny that he committed the new offense or otherwise challenge the validity of his postplea arrest, the court was not obligated to conduct an inquiry to determine whether there was a lawful basis for the new arrest before imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Hendrix, 62 AD3d 1261, lv denied 12 NY3d 925; People v Huggins, 45 AD3d 1380, lv denied 9 NY3d 1006; see generally People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MILLS, DENNIS J., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-dennis-j-people-v-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack