Opinion
2018-1791 S CR
12-19-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles CROWLEY, Appellant.
Lavallee Law Office, PLLC (Ryan L. Brownyard of counsel), for appellant. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.
Lavallee Law Office, PLLC (Ryan L. Brownyard of counsel), for appellant.
Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.
PRESENT: THOMAS A. ADAMS, P.J., BRUCE E. TOLBERT, JERRY GARGUILO, JJ
ORDERED that the sentence, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
Following a nonjury trial, the District Court found defendant guilty of speeding for driving 88 miles per hour (mph) in a 55-mph zone ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [b] ) and unlicensed driving ( Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1] ). Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the court sentenced defendant to a one-year license suspension upon his conviction of speeding, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 (3) (d), which authorizes such a suspension "for habitual or persistent violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, or of any lawful ordinance, rule or regulation made by local authorities in relation to traffic." By order dated September 5, 2018, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mark Cohen, J.), granted defendant's motion to stay the sentence pending this appeal.
According to defendant's driving abstract, he amassed seven convictions pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law in four different New York counties prior to, and within three years of, the instant convictions. Four of these seven convictions, all of which resulted in no driving points being assessed against defendant, were the result of downward pleas from speeding charges of 70 mph in a 55-mph zone, 94 mph in a 65-mph zone, 76 mph in a 35-mph zone and 88 mph in a 65-mph zone.
In light of the 22-year-old defendant's dismal driving record, alongside his instant convictions of speeding at an excessive rate while not possessing a valid license to drive at all, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in suspending defendant's license for one year pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 (3) (d).
Accordingly, the sentence, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.
ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.