People v. Cote

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cote

265 A.D.2d 681, 697 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 681 (People v. Cote) 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

People v. Cote, 265 A.D.2d 681, 697 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered May 18, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). During the course of the plea allocution, County Court made a specific commitment to sentence defendant to a term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. Neither County Court nor the prosecutor mentioned that a fine would be imposed in addition to the term of imprisonment. Subsequently, at sentencing, County Court imposed the promised term of imprisonment and, without [682]*682discussion as to the reason, imposed a $2,000 fine. Defense counsel made no objection to the fine, noting only that defendant did not have the means to pay it, prompting County Court to reduce it to a judgment. Defendant now appeals, challenging only the fine.

Initially, we reject the People’s argument that defendant’s failure to remind County Court that a fine, which is optional at the discretion of the court (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), had not been included in the plea bargain effected a waiver of that issue (see, People v Youngs, 156 AD2d 885, 886). Turning to the merits, we conclude that, although we find no fault with the plea allocution, County Court erred in not sentencing defendant as agreed by imposing the fine; therefore, the fine must be vacated (see, id.; see also, People v Fisher, 233 AD2d 625; People v Barto, 161 AD2d 1044).

Cardona, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of the $2,000 fine, and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered May 18, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). During the course of the plea allocution, County Court made a specific commitment to sentence defendant to a term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. Neither County Court nor the prosecutor mentioned that a fine would be imposed in addition to the term of imprisonment. Subsequently, at sentencing, County Court imposed the promised term of imprisonment and, without [682]*682discussion as to the reason, imposed a $2,000 fine. Defense counsel made no objection to the fine, noting only that defendant did not have the means to pay it, prompting County Court to reduce it to a judgment. Defendant now appeals, challenging only the fine.

Initially, we reject the People’s argument that defendant’s failure to remind County Court that a fine, which is optional at the discretion of the court (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]), had not been included in the plea bargain effected a waiver of that issue (see, People v Youngs, 156 AD2d 885, 886). Turning to the merits, we conclude that, although we find no fault with the plea allocution, County Court erred in not sentencing defendant as agreed by imposing the fine; therefore, the fine must be vacated (see, id.; see also, People v Fisher, 233 AD2d 625; People v Barto, 161 AD2d 1044).

Cardona, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of the $2,000 fine, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 681, 697 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cote-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack