People v. Stewart

28 A.D.3d 1188, 812 N.Y.S.2d 901, 816 N.Y.S.2d 397
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 2006·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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).

28 A.D.3d 1188 (People v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reeb v. Woods
751 F. Supp. 2d 484 (W.D. New York, 2010)