People v DiPalma

People v Dipalma 2016 NY Slip Op 08794 Decided on December 23, 2016 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 23, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
1299 KA 14-01072

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

SAMUEL DIPALMA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered October 15, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [i] [A]) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). The People correctly concede that the waiver of the right to appeal his conviction did not encompass defendant's contention in appeal No. 2 that the period of postrelease supervision is unduly harsh and severe and thus does not foreclose our review of that contention (see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 927-928; People v Diaz, 142 AD3d 1332, 1333). We nevertheless reject that contention.

Contrary to defendant's contention in appeal No. 1, Supreme Court did not impose a fee of $350, rather than the proper fee of $50, for the DNA databank fee (see Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v]). Although the sentencing transcript reflects the imposition of a DNA databank fee of $350, the transcript further reflects that the court correctly stated the total amount due from defendant for fees and surcharges, which establishes that the court properly imposed a fee of $50. Moreover, the certificate of conviction correctly states that $50 was assessed for the DNA databank fee. We therefore conclude that no corrective action is necessary inasmuch as the record establishes either that the court misspoke or that there is a transcription error (see People v Kaetzel, 117 AD3d 1187, 1190, lv denied 24 NY3d 962).

Entered: December 23, 2016

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court