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.

People v. Flanders

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

October 3, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL FLANDERS, Appellant.

Calendar Date: September 3, 2013

Cliff Gordon, Monticello, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Stein, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered June 27, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving while intoxicated in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of 1⅓ to 4 years. Defendant was also ordered, as pertinent here, to pay a mandatory surcharge, as well as a fine and various fees. At the sentencing hearing, defendant sought to have the payment of the mandatory surcharge deferred until after he served his sentence, so that he could save any money accumulated in prison in order to be more self-sufficient upon his release. County Court denied the request and thereafter sentenced defendant to the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in denying his request to defer the payment of the mandatory surcharge prior to imposing sentence. In our view, defendant did not demonstrate that the payment of the surcharge "'would work an unreasonable hardship on defendant over and above the ordinary hardship suffered by other indigent inmates'" (People v Kistner, 291 A.D.2d 856, 856 [2002], quoting People v Abdus-Samad, 274 A.D.2d 666, 667 [2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 862 [2000]; see CPL 420.40 [2]) [1]. As to defendant's contention that the agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive, we find no extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence, particularly in light of defendant's considerable criminal history, which includes two previous convictions of driving while intoxicated (see People v Williams, 101 A.D.3d 1174, 1174 [2012]; People v Muniz, 93 A.D.3d 871, 876 [2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 965 [2012]).

McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


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.