People v. Erwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Erwin

299 A.D.2d 366, 749 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10530

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

DecidedNovember 4, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 299 A.D.2d 366 (People v. Erwin) 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. Erwin, 299 A.D.2d 366, 749 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered April 12, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of 5 to 10 years imprisonment and a civil forfeiture, inter alia, in the amount of $332.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

[367]*367The plea minutes do not indicate that the defendant agreed to the payment of a civil forfeiture as a condition of the agreed-upon sentence. Accordingly, at sentencing, the defendant should have been given an opportunity either to withdraw his plea or to agree to pay the civil forfeiture in addition to a prison sentence (see People v Cisco, 208 AD2d 643; cf. People v Ford, 246 AD2d 665, 666; People v Concepcion, 188 AD2d 483). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered April 12, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of 5 to 10 years imprisonment and a civil forfeiture, inter alia, in the amount of $332.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

[367]*367The plea minutes do not indicate that the defendant agreed to the payment of a civil forfeiture as a condition of the agreed-upon sentence. Accordingly, at sentencing, the defendant should have been given an opportunity either to withdraw his plea or to agree to pay the civil forfeiture in addition to a prison sentence (see People v Cisco, 208 AD2d 643; cf. People v Ford, 246 AD2d 665, 666; People v Concepcion, 188 AD2d 483). Florio, J.P., O’Brien, Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 366, 749 N.Y.S.2d 159, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-erwin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack