People v Bobet (Marcos)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Bobet (Marcos) 2019 NY Slip Op 50017(U) Decided on January 14, 2019 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 14, 2019
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Gonzalez, J.P., Cooper, Edmead, JJ.
570191/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Marcos Bobet, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Eileen Koretz, J.H.O.), rendered March 9, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed driving in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Eileen Koretz, J.H.O.), rendered March 9, 2016, modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce defendant's conviction for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree to unlicensed driving, and remand for resentencing on that conviction; as modified, judgment of conviction affirmed. As the People concede, the facts admitted by defendant during the plea allocution do not support a conviction of aggravated unlicensed driving in the third degree (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[1]), but, instead, of unlicensed driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509[1]). Modification, to which the People consent and indeed, which they urge, is therefore appropriate to conform the conviction to the crime to which defendant pleaded (see People v Cardona, 75 AD2d 520 [1980]). We decline defendant's request to dismiss the accusatory instrument in view of the serious nature of the charged conduct and note that defendant has alternatively requested that we reduce the conviction to unlicensed driving.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: January 14, 2019

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.