People v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burke

204 A.D.2d 345, 614 N.Y.S.2d 152

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 1994·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from so much of a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), imposed December 8, 1992, as, upon her conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, imposed a mandatory surcharge.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The only issue raised by the defendant is that the court should have waived the mandatory surcharge of $155 imposed as a condition of her sentence. However, it is well settled that such challenges are premature at the time of sentencing. The defendant may earn funds while incarcerated from which to [346] pay the surcharge, or upon completion of the sentence the defendant may move to vacate the surcharge on a showing of indigency (see, People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Fields, 193 AD2d 814; see also, People v Velasquez, 198 AD2d 25; People v Mejia, 191 AD2d 844; People v Snell, 161 AD2d 1125). In either event, such challenges are unavailing at this juncture. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from so much of a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), imposed December 8, 1992, as, upon her conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, imposed a mandatory surcharge.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The only issue raised by the defendant is that the court should have waived the mandatory surcharge of $155 imposed as a condition of her sentence. However, it is well settled that such challenges are premature at the time of sentencing. The defendant may earn funds while incarcerated from which to [346] pay the surcharge, or upon completion of the sentence the defendant may move to vacate the surcharge on a showing of indigency (see, People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Fields, 193 AD2d 814; see also, People v Velasquez, 198 AD2d 25; People v Mejia, 191 AD2d 844; People v Snell, 161 AD2d 1125). In either event, such challenges are unavailing at this juncture. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Miller, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

People v. Burke, 204 A.D.2d 345, 614 N.Y.S.2d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

204 A.D.2d 345 (People v. Burke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related