Opinion
No. 2021-03929 Ind. No. 29/20
10-26-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. James M. Ruiz, appellant.
Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Andrew D. Ellis of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Andrew D. Ellis of counsel), for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered May 12, 2021, convicting him of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3⅓ to 10 years and a fine in the sum of $2,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating so much of the sentence as imposed a fine in the sum of $2,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 N.Y.3d 337, 340-342). The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 255-256; People v Stacker, 206 A.D.3d 766).
The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal does not preclude appellate review of his contention that the County Court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence (see People v Baker, 204 A.D.3d 1471, 1471; People v Gregory, 140 A.D.3d 1088, 1089). Although the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Sirabella, 148 A.D.3d 1186, 1186; People v Carrasquillo, 133 A.D.3d 774, 775), we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The County Court improperly enhanced the defendant's sentence by imposing a fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement (see People v Sims, 146 A.D.3d 820, 821; People v Gregory, 140 A.D.3d at 1089; People v Roberts, 139 A.D.3d 1092, 1092). Under the circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to vacate so much of his sentence as imposed a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty (see People v Sims, 146 A.D.3d at 821; People v Gregory, 140 A.D.3d at 1089; People v Roberts, 139 A.D.3d at 1092).
The defendant's remaining contentions are precluded by his valid appeal waiver (see People v Price, 150 A.D.3d 1153, 1154; People v Abdul, 112 A.D.3d 644, 645; People v Andre L., 18 A.D.3d 575, 576).
DILLON, J.P., CONNOLLY, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.