From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 18, 1985
112 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 18, 1985

Appeal from the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.).


Defendant challenges the imposition of a mandatory surcharge against him pursuant to CPL 420.35 on the ground that his indigency makes it impossible to pay the fine. It is also defendant's contention that double jeopardy considerations preclude his conviction of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree since he had already incurred the loss of prisoner privileges in an administrative proceeding resulting from the same facts underlying his conviction for the instant crime.

This court has recently held in People v. Briggs ( 108 A.D.2d 1058) that loss of inmate privileges does not form the predicate for a claim of double jeopardy upon an indictment and trial for a crime based on the acts in the underlying disciplinary charge. We therefore reject defendant's double jeopardy claim.

The denial of a waiver of the surcharge assessment made against defendant was appropriately made within the discretion of the trial court and we decline to disturb such a decision. Defendant failed to allege sufficient facts entitling him to such consideration.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J.P., Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 18, 1985
112 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALBERT TAYLOR, Also…

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

Date published: Jul 18, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

People v. Oliver

Finally, we reject defendant's challenge to the fine imposed. In our view, the imposition of the maximum…

People v. Dash

Given these facts, as well as defendant's criminal record, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed…