From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 14, 1996
233 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

November 14, 1996.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered August 29, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated and which revoked his probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ.


Defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and violating probation with the express understanding that his sentence would entail two consecutive one-year jail terms, revocation of his driving privileges and the imposition of a fine. Sentenced accordingly, defendant argues on appeal that the imposition of the consecutive jail terms was harsh and excessive in view of his efforts to address his drinking problem.

Inasmuch as defendant has since completed this jail term, this argument is moot ( see, People v Knickerbocker, 136 AD2d 769, 771). In any event, in light of defendant's three prior alcohol-related offenses, one of which was a felony, we would not find any reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court, which was well within the statutory guidelines ( see, e.g., People v Trathen, 227 AD2d 734).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 14, 1996
233 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Regan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY A. REGAN…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1996

Citations

233 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
650 N.Y.S.2d 321

Citing Cases

People v. Motte

Furthermore, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb County Court's summary denial of defendant's motion…

People v. Mainville

rance of the evidence supports the finding that he violated the terms of his probation, but rather argues…