From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Olmstead

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 21, 2013
111 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-21

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephen G. OLMSTEAD, Appellant.

Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Alexander Lesyk of counsel), for respondent.


Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Alexander Lesyk of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, McCarthy and Spain, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered August 15, 2012, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

In 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and three years of probation. He was also ordered to pay a $1,000 fine as well as fees and surcharges. After defendant admitted to violating conditions of his probation, his probationary sentence was vacated and he was sentenced to one year in jail, with the unpaid fine, surcharges and fees remaining as part of his sentence. Defendant appeals.

Because defendant has completed serving his one-year jail term, his sole claim on this appeal—that the jail time imposed was harsh and excessive—is moot ( see People v. Fusco, 91 A.D.3d 984, 985, 936 N.Y.S.2d 360 [2012]; People v. Nieves, 89 A.D.3d 1285, 1287, 933 N.Y.S.2d 137 [2011] ). However, given our finding in a companion appeal that County Court may have misapprehended its ability to exercise discretion when it imposed a fine as part of defendant's original sentence

on the driving while intoxicated conviction (People v. Olmstead, 111 A.D.3d 1065, 975 N.Y.S.2d 360 [decided herewith] ), and inasmuch as that fine remained part of defendant's sentence upon his violation of probation, we must vacate that portion of the sentence herein that continued the fine and remit the matter for further proceedings on this issue.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating that portion of the sentence that continued the fine; matter remitted to the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed. STEIN, McCARTHY and SPAIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Olmstead

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 21, 2013
111 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Olmstead

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephen G. OLMSTEAD…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 21, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 1065 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
111 A.D.3d 1065
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7771

Citing Cases

People v. Rodwell

Moreover, given defendant's criminal history, we cannot say that Supreme Court abused its discretion in…