People v. Cottelli

46 A.D.3d 952, 847 N.Y.S.2d 254
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 6, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 952 (People v. Cottelli) 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. Cottelli, 46 A.D.3d 952, 847 N.Y.S.2d 254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Crew III, J.E

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of [953]*953Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered March 18, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of three counts of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of the crime of driving while intoxicated, in full satisfaction of two indictments and a superior court information, stemming from three separate incidents between September 10, 2004 and November 20, 2004. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a period of five years probation, with the first six months to be served in jail. Additionally, defendant was to participate in the Community Corrections Program for two months, as a condition of his probation. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant contends that his waiver of indictment and agreement to be prosecuted by the superior court information was invalid because he had not been held for action by a grand jury. A review of the record reveals, however, that defendant’s signed waiver of indictment expressly states that he was held for the action of the Ulster County grand jury, making his waiver valid (see People v Valenti, 264 AD2d 904, 905 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 926 [2000]; People v Mitchell, 243 AD2d 1005 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 928 [1998]).

We further reject defendant’s assertion that the requirement that he participate in the Community Corrections Program (apparently a residential facility serving substance abusers) for two months constituted an impermissible and illegal additional two months of imprisonment.

Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Peterson v. Becker
72 A.D.3d 1250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.3d 952, 847 N.Y.S.2d 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cottelli-nyappdiv-2007.