People v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Regan

233 A.D.2d 615, 650 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11709

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 14, 1996·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered August 29, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated and which revoked his probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and violating probation with the express understanding that his sentence would entail two consecutive one-year jail terms, revocation of his driving privileges and the imposition of a fine. Sentenced accordingly, defendant argues on appeal that the imposition of the consecutive jail terms was harsh and excessive in view of his efforts to address his drinking problem. [616]*616Inasmuch as defendant has since completed this jail term, this argument is moot (see, People v Knickerbocker, 136 AD2d 769, 771). In any event, in light of defendant’s three prior alcohol-related offenses, one of which was a felony, we would not find any reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court, which was well within the statutory guidelines (see, e.g., People v Trathen, 227 AD2d 734).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered August 29, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated and which revoked his probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and violating probation with the express understanding that his sentence would entail two consecutive one-year jail terms, revocation of his driving privileges and the imposition of a fine. Sentenced accordingly, defendant argues on appeal that the imposition of the consecutive jail terms was harsh and excessive in view of his efforts to address his drinking problem. [616]*616Inasmuch as defendant has since completed this jail term, this argument is moot (see, People v Knickerbocker, 136 AD2d 769, 771). In any event, in light of defendant’s three prior alcohol-related offenses, one of which was a felony, we would not find any reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court, which was well within the statutory guidelines (see, e.g., People v Trathen, 227 AD2d 734).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Regan, 233 A.D.2d 615, 650 N.Y.S.2d 321, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

233 A.D.2d 615 (People v. Regan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related