Summary
In People v. Hoti, 12 N.Y.3d 742 [2009], the Court of Appeals held that the imposition of fees are not components of a sentence.
Summary of this case from Reinard v. StateOpinion
No. 75 SSM 4.
Decided February 19, 2009
APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered June 3, 2008. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.
The trial court failed to inform defendant prior to his guilty plea that he would be required to pay a mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee. Defendant argued on appeal that the court's failure to pronounce the sur-charge and fees prior to the entry of his plea rendered the plea unknowing, involuntary and unintelligent, and therefore subject to vacatur.
People v Hoti, 52 AD3d 211, affirmed.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City ( Mark W. Zeno of counsel), for appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Richard Nahas of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES.
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed. The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee are not components of a defendant's sentence ( see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [decided today]). Accordingly, the court's failure to pronounce the sur-charge and fees prior to the entry of defendant's plea did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action ( cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245).
Taking no part: Chief Judge LIPPMAN.