People v Treglia (Frank)Annotate this Case
Decided on June 11, 2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., LaCAVA and EMERSON, JJ
2006-886 W CR.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
Frank Treglia, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester
County (James W. Hubert, J.), rendered December 29, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant,
upon his plea of guilty, of driving while intoxicated.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated per se (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ) and driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ). After plea negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 ) in full satisfaction of the charges against him. The court imposed a sentence of three years' probation and pronounced that the conditions of probation were set forth in the presentence report, which inter alia, included the condition that defendant is not to "apply for driving privileges without the permission of the court and probation." In addition, the court expressly stated at sentencing that defendant was to apply to the Probation Department before making application to have his license reinstated. However, the "Order and Conditions of Probation" which defendant received at sentencing did not have the paragraph checked off making said condition a condition of probation.
Defendant's contention, that the court below improperly failed to specify that the aforementioned condition was a condition of probation, and that he was not provided with a written copy of said condition of probation at sentencing, was not preserved for appellate review (see People v Cover, 154 AD2d 927 ). Nevertheless, the failure to strictly comply with [*2]CPL 410.10 , that defendant be given a written copy of the conditions of probation at the time sentence is imposed, will not render the sentence invalid or warrant modification of the conditions of probation. Defendant had full knowledge of the precise condition of probation as it was contained in the "DWI Conditions" which the court expressly indicated at sentencing were the conditions of probation (see People v Simone, 13 AD3d 7 , lv denied 4 NY3d 835 ; People v Bernstein, 163 AD2d 842 ; People v Nazarian, 150 AD2d 923 ). Furthermore, there was no indication given by the court at the time of sentencing that the condition of probation requiring him to obtain permission from the court and probation when applying for driving privileges was modified or omitted.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Rudolph, P.J., LaCava and Emerson, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 11, 2007