People v. Schena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schena

59 A.D.3d 986, 872 N.Y.S.2d 316

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 986 (People v. Schena) 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. Schena, 59 A.D.3d 986, 872 N.Y.S.2d 316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered January 3, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]). We note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly recites that a fine of $1,500 was imposed on the conviction, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that the fine imposed was $1,050 (see generally People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286 [2006]). We reject [987]*987defendant’s contention that the fine imposed is unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Peradotto and Gorski, 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 January 3, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]). We note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly recites that a fine of $1,500 was imposed on the conviction, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that the fine imposed was $1,050 (see generally People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286 [2006]). We reject [987]*987defendant’s contention that the fine imposed is unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 986, 872 N.Y.S.2d 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schena-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack