From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. John Baxter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2011
86 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-09432.

July 26, 2011.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered September 7, 2010, convicting him of driving while intoxicated per se under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), and failing to stay in a designated lane while operating a motor vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made, and that the People failed to file a special information charging that he had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated. These claims are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise raise the issue before the Supreme Court ( see People v Hardee, 84 AD3d 835; People v Kulmatycski, 83 AD3d 734). In any event, the defendant's contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is without merit. As to his claim that the People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL 200.60 charging that he had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated, that procedural defect was waived by defendant's plea of guilty ( see People v Sanchez, 55 AD3d 460; People v Viano, 287 AD2d 584).

Further, because the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive ( see People v Nimerofsky, 78 AD3d 735; People v De Alvarez, 59 AD3d 732; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). In any event, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. John Baxter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 26, 2011
86 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. John Baxter

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN BAXTER, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2011

Citations

86 A.D.3d 648 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6108
927 N.Y.S.2d 606

Citing Cases

People v. Yunga

The defendant additionally claims that the People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL…

People v. Yunga

Further, where, as here, the defendant's “waiver of indictment satisfied all of the requirements of the New…