People v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stewart

28 A.D.3d 1188, 812 N.Y.S.2d 901, 816 N.Y.S.2d 397

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

DecidedApril 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 1188 (People v. Stewart) 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. Stewart, 28 A.D.3d 1188, 812 N.Y.S.2d 901, 816 N.Y.S.2d 397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), rendered October 12, 2004. The judgment [1189]*1189convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing a surcharge and crime victim assistance fee because the court also ordered him to pay restitution. “ ‘[T]he plain language of [Penal Law § 60.35 (6)] permits the sentencing court to order both restitution and the mandatory surcharge/crime victim assistance fee’ where, as here, defendant has not yet made restitution” {People v Michalski, 15 AD3d 918, 919 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 854 [2005], quoting People v Quinones, 95 NY2d 349, 352 [2000]). The bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Smith, Green 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 Livingston County Court (Ronald A. Cicoria, J.), rendered October 12, 2004. The judgment [1189]*1189convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing a surcharge and crime victim assistance fee because the court also ordered him to pay restitution. “ ‘[T]he plain language of [Penal Law § 60.35 (6)] permits the sentencing court to order both restitution and the mandatory surcharge/crime victim assistance fee’ where, as here, defendant has not yet made restitution” {People v Michalski, 15 AD3d 918, 919 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 854 [2005], quoting People v Quinones, 95 NY2d 349, 352 [2000]). The bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 1188, 812 N.Y.S.2d 901, 816 N.Y.S.2d 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stewart-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack