Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. John D. Williams

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


February 1, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
JOHN D. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

Appeal from a resentence of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered February 14, 2011.

People v Williams

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Released on February 1, 2013

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony.

It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a resentence following his conviction upon a plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i]), defendant contends that the ignition interlock device (IID) component of his sentence should be vacated. As defendant correctly concedes, County Court informed him prior to his plea that his sentence would include an IID component, but defendant contends that the court's failure to inform him of the length of time he would be required to maintain an IID in his vehicle rendered his plea involuntary. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention has merit, we conclude that defendant would not be entitled to the remedy he seeks, i.e., vacatur of the IID component of his sentence, because the remedy for an involuntary plea is vacatur of the plea itself (see generally People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245). Furthermore, defendant would not in any case be entitled to vacatur of that component of his sentence inasmuch as the IID requirement is mandated by law (see § 1193 [1] [c] [iii]).

Finally, defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 1, 2013

Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20130201

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.