People v. Sausville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sausville

112 A.D.3d 984, 975 N.Y.S.2d 919

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.3d 984 (People v. Sausville) 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. Sausville, 112 A.D.3d 984, 975 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered October 17, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to a prison term of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision, and imposed a $5,000 fine. Defendant now appeals, challenging the amount of the fine imposed.

We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as the record reflects that the appeal waiver explicitly excluded a challenge as to the fine imposed, the issue is properly before this Court (see People v Scott, 74 AD3d 1582, 1582 [2010]). Nevertheless, defendant was informed during the plea colloquy of the potential fine that could be imposed and we find that the imposition of the maximum allowable fine was a provident exercise of County Court’s discretion (see Penal Law § 80.00 [1] [a]; People v Shultis, 61 AD3d 1116, 1118 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 929 [2009]), and we discern no basis in the record to disturb it.

Rose, J.E, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered October 17, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to a prison term of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision, and imposed a $5,000 fine. Defendant now appeals, challenging the amount of the fine imposed.

We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as the record reflects that the appeal waiver explicitly excluded a challenge as to the fine imposed, the issue is properly before this Court (see People v Scott, 74 AD3d 1582, 1582 [2010]). Nevertheless, defendant was informed during the plea colloquy of the potential fine that could be imposed and we find that the imposition of the maximum allowable fine was a provident exercise of County Court’s discretion (see Penal Law § 80.00 [1] [a]; People v Shultis, 61 AD3d 1116, 1118 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 929 [2009]), and we discern no basis in the record to disturb it.

Rose, J.E, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.3d 984, 975 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sausville-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack