People v. Hairston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hairston

140 A.D.2d 744, 528 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4696

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

DecidedMay 5, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 744 (People v. Hairston) 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. Hairston, 140 A.D.2d 744, 528 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Casey, J.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of sodomy in the second degree in full satisfaction of an indictment which charged that crime and also the crime of rape in the second degree. Defendant understood that he would be sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 3 to 6 years and admitted a prior conviction of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree as the predicate felony. Defendant was sentenced as indicated, and County Court imposed a surcharge of $100 mandated by CPL 420.35, refusing defendant’s request to waive the surcharge for lack of a showing of indigency.

On this appeal, defendant argues only the excessiveness of his sentence. Defendant was permitted to plead to one count of a two-count indictment. He admitted being a second felony offender and clearly understood what the sentence would be if he pleaded guilty. Having received the negotiated bargain, defendant can hardly claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive, and we do not view it so in the interest of justice.

Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the surcharge of $100. Defendant’s failure to demonstrate his indigency required the imposition of the surcharge. The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

— Casey, J.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of sodomy in the second degree in full satisfaction of an indictment which charged that crime and also the crime of rape in the second degree. Defendant understood that he would be sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of 3 to 6 years and admitted a prior conviction of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree as the predicate felony. Defendant was sentenced as indicated, and County Court imposed a surcharge of $100 mandated by CPL 420.35, refusing defendant’s request to waive the surcharge for lack of a showing of indigency.

On this appeal, defendant argues only the excessiveness of his sentence. Defendant was permitted to plead to one count of a two-count indictment. He admitted being a second felony offender and clearly understood what the sentence would be if he pleaded guilty. Having received the negotiated bargain, defendant can hardly claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive, and we do not view it so in the interest of justice.

Furthermore, we find no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the surcharge of $100. Defendant’s failure to demonstrate his indigency required the imposition of the surcharge. The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 744, 528 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hairston-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack