People v Scott (Latwan)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Scott (Latwan) 2014 NY Slip Op 51519(U) Decided on October 22, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 22, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
571044/12

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Latwan Scott, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at sentencing), rendered September 13, 2012, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert H. Straus, J. at plea; Kevin B. McGrath, J. at sentencing), rendered September 13, 2012, reversed, on the law, and matter remanded for further proceedings on the accusatory instrument.

As the People now concede, defendant's conviction of second-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle must be vacated since the plea record lacks the requisite "affirming showing" that defendant understood and waived his Boykin rights (see Boykin v Alabama, 395 US 238 [1969]; People v Tyrell, 22 NY3d 359 [2013]). Even though defendant has served his jail sentence, we find the dismissal remedy that he now seeks to be unwarranted in the circumstances of this case, since "for penological purposes it is relevant whether defendant committed the crime" (People v Allen, 39 NY2d 916, 918 [1976]). Should defendant commit another similar traffic misdemeanor, "it is important that the court be able to impose an enhanced sentence" (People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 38 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 837 [1985]; see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[2][a][1]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: October 22, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.