People v Gonzalez (Emmanuel)

[*1] People v Gonzalez (Emmanuel) 2018 NY Slip Op 50911(U) Decided on June 18, 2018 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 18, 2018
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Ling-Cohan, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570055/17

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Emmanuel Gonzalez Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), rendered November 17, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of two counts of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and sentencing him, inter alia, to restitution in the amount of $5000.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Louis L. Nock, J.), rendered November 17, 2016, affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the amount of restitution inasmuch as he expressly consented, without objection, to that amount at the plea proceeding and at the time of sentencing, and he did not request a hearing on that issue (see People v Paul, 159 AD3d 657 [2018]). In any event, we are not persuaded that the bargained-for sentence imposed upon defendant's conviction of two counts of driving while intoxicated, including payment of restitution in the agreed-upon amount of $5,000, was unduly harsh or excessive, and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice (see People v Fair, 33 AD3d 558 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]; People v Suros, 209 AD2d 203 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 943 [1995], cert denied 516 US 862 [1995]). Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his bargained for plea and should not now "be heard to complain that he received what he bargained for" (People v Fair, 33 AD3d at 558,quoting People v Chambers, 123 AD2d 270 [1986]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 18, 2018