People v. Lancaster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lancaster

260 A.D.2d 660, 688 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280

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

DecidedApril 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 660 (People v. Lancaster) 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. Lancaster, 260 A.D.2d 660, 688 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), rendered January 23, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as an unclassified misdemeanor (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) in full satisfaction of a two-count indictment. Defendant waived his right to appeal and, in exchange, was sentenced to an agreed-upon term of three years’ probation, the payment of a surcharge and fine, and the revocation of his license. On this appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred by accepting his plea without advising him that a subsequent conviction of the crime of driving while intoxicated would constitute a felony (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c]). We disagree.

Defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate his conviction prior to this appeal and, hence, he has failed to preserve for our review the claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see, People v Comer, 236 AD2d 658, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1090). Were we to consider defendant’s contention, we nonetheless would find it to be [661]*661without merit. It is abundantly clear that the fact that a defendant is subject to enhanced criminal treatment for an offense that he or she may commit in the future is a collateral consequence of the plea, about which a defendant need not be advised (see, e.g., People v Depeyster, 115 AD2d 613).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), rendered January 23, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol as an unclassified misdemeanor (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) in full satisfaction of a two-count indictment. Defendant waived his right to appeal and, in exchange, was sentenced to an agreed-upon term of three years’ probation, the payment of a surcharge and fine, and the revocation of his license. On this appeal, defendant contends that County Court erred by accepting his plea without advising him that a subsequent conviction of the crime of driving while intoxicated would constitute a felony (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c]). We disagree.

Defendant did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate his conviction prior to this appeal and, hence, he has failed to preserve for our review the claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see, People v Comer, 236 AD2d 658, Iv denied 89 NY2d 1090). Were we to consider defendant’s contention, we nonetheless would find it to be [661]*661without merit. It is abundantly clear that the fact that a defendant is subject to enhanced criminal treatment for an offense that he or she may commit in the future is a collateral consequence of the plea, about which a defendant need not be advised (see, e.g., People v Depeyster, 115 AD2d 613).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 660, 688 N.Y.S.2d 711, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lancaster-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack