People v. Kinnear

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kinnear

78 A.D.3d 1593, 910 N.Y.S.2d 731

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

DecidedNovember 12, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 1593 (People v. Kinnear) 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. Kinnear, 78 A.D.3d 1593, 910 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judg[1594]*1594ment of the Ontario County Court (Stephen R. Sir kin, A.J.), rendered June 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he previously had been convicted of driving while intoxicated, and thus that the judgment must be modified to reduce the conviction to two counts of driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Vollick, 148 AD2d 950 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 877 [1990]). In any event, we reject that contention. The certificate of conviction that was admitted in evidence identified defendant by name and date of birth and was corroborated by evidence of the date of birth reflected on his driver’s license. “Thus, the People established that defendant was the person previously convicted of driving while intoxicated” (People v Petrianni, 24 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2005]; see People v Switzer, 55 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 858 [2008]). Present — Martoche, J.P, Sconiers, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judg[1594]*1594ment of the Ontario County Court (Stephen R. Sir kin, A.J.), rendered June 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of two counts of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he previously had been convicted of driving while intoxicated, and thus that the judgment must be modified to reduce the conviction to two counts of driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Vollick, 148 AD2d 950 [1989], affd 75 NY2d 877 [1990]). In any event, we reject that contention. The certificate of conviction that was admitted in evidence identified defendant by name and date of birth and was corroborated by evidence of the date of birth reflected on his driver’s license. “Thus, the People established that defendant was the person previously convicted of driving while intoxicated” (People v Petrianni, 24 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2005]; see People v Switzer, 55 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 858 [2008]). Present — Martoche, J.P, Sconiers, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 1593, 910 N.Y.S.2d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kinnear-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack