From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Arquette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 2001
281 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

March 1, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered March 6, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant.

Andrew G. Schrader, District Attorney, Malone, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree in full satisfaction of a 12-count superior court information and was thereafter sentenced to an indeterminate term of 1 to 3 years in prison. In addition, County Court imposed restitution in the agreed upon amount of $8,371.51 plus a 10% collection surcharge for a total of $9,208.66. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we reject defendant's assertion that his prison sentence is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. A sentence within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification in the interest of justice (see, People v. Dolphy, 257 A.D.2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 872). Here, given defendant's extensive criminal record and the details contained in the record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence (see, People v. Spencer, 272 A.D.2d 682,lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 858).

We do find merit, however, in defendant's argument that the collection surcharge imposed on the amount of restitution was improperly calculated. The People concede, and our review of the record confirms, that County Court erred in imposing a collection surcharge of 10% upon the amount of restitution in the absence of an affidavit indicating that the actual cost of collection exceeded 5% (see, Penal Law § 60.27). Accordingly, the surcharge should be reduced to 5% of the amount of restitution actually collected (see, id.).

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting so much thereof as imposed a 10% collection surcharge on the $8,371.51 amount of restitution; collection surcharge reduced to 5% of the amount of restitution actually collected; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Arquette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 1, 2001
281 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Arquette

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH ARQUETTE…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 652 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 852

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27(8), when restitution is imposed upon a defendant, the court shall impose no…

People v. Rawdon

Our review of the record confirms the People's concession that no affidavit indicating that the actual cost…