From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Redeye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

14873.

Decided and Entered: June 17, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered July 22, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Dominique Y. Tauzin, Albany, for appellant.

Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated in satisfaction of a superior court information and was informed of the sentencing options available to County Court. Although the People recommended one year of local incarceration, defendant was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison, to run consecutively to the prison term he was currently serving for a previous drunk driving conviction. We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention on appeal that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. The record discloses that this was defendant's fourth alcohol-related offense in two years and he was on probation for similar conduct at the time of the instant offense. Although defendant maintained that his recurring alcohol-related offenses could be viewed as part of a continuing course of conduct, we find no reason to disturb the court's conclusion that the incidents were unrelated. Accordingly, a consecutive sentence was appropriate under these circumstances (see People v. McNeil, 268 A.D.2d 611). Furthermore, notwithstanding defendant's assertion that he has made positive progress in addressing his alcohol abuse problem, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting the reduction of the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see People v. Richburg, 287 A.D.2d 790, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 687; People v. Hawke, 270 A.D.2d 646; People v. McNeil, supra).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Redeye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 17, 2004
8 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Redeye

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROY S. REDEYE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 17, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 558

Citing Cases

State v. Hammond

Further, by specifically objecting to the People's request to instruct the jury on the lesser included…

People v. Steinhilber

urrounding the accident ( see People v Miller, supra; People v Noonan, 220 AD2d 811; People v Hanna, 185 AD2d…