Opinion
No. 2022-678 Q CR
07-26-2024
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gary Gill, Appellant.
Appellate Advocates (Yaniv Kot of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Appellate Advocates (Yaniv Kot of counsel), for appellant.
Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT:: CHEREÉ A. BUGGS, J.P., MARINA CORA MUNDY, PHILLIP HOM, JJ
Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jeffrey A. Gershuny, J.), imposed June 13, 2022, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Following negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (Penal Law § 170.20), a class A misdemeanor, in satisfaction of all of the numerous charges on the docket, and was sentenced to a $500 fine. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence of a $500 fine was excessive and should be vacated, and that he should be re-sentenced to a conditional discharge because (1) he is indigent and qualified for assigned counsel in the Criminal Court and on appeal, and (2) he obtained no monetary gain from his conduct, and there was no financial loss due to his conduct. In the alternative, defendant requested that the fine be reduced.
The record indicates that defendant was employed at the time of his negotiated plea and sentence, and agreed to the imposition of a $500 fine rather than community service. Defendant also did not seek relief from the fine by way of a CPL 420.10 (5) motion for re-sentencing (see People v Toledo, 101 A.D.3d 571 [2012], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 947 [2013]; People v Acevedo, 243 A.D.2d 572 [1997]; People v Mercado, 81 Misc.3d 143 [A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50163[U] [App Term, 1st Dept, 2024]). Moreover, defendant has shown no extraordinary circumstances that warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302 [1982]; People v Vega, 73 A.D.3d 1218 [2010]; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80 [1982]). As defendant has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement, he "has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive" (People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 817 [1984]; see People v Galvez, 72 A.D.3d 838 [2010]; People v Ubiles, 59 A.D.3d 572 [2009]).
Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.
BUGGS, J.P., MUNDY and HOM, JJ., concur.