People v. Mendoza-Valenzuela

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza-Valenzuela

56 A.D.2d 1172, 866 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 1172 (People v. Mendoza-Valenzuela) 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. Mendoza-Valenzuela, 56 A.D.2d 1172, 866 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered June 28, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of felony driving while intoxicated.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. We note, however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (see generally People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286 [2006]). Present — Martoche, J.E, Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered June 28, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of felony driving while intoxicated.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. We note, however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a class E felony, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (see generally People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286 [2006]). Present — Martoche, J.E, Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 1172, 866 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-valenzuela-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack