People v Sanchez (Nicholas)

[*1] People v Sanchez (Nicholas) 2014 NY Slip Op 50402(U) Decided on March 10, 2014 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 10, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ
.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Nicholas Sanchez, Appellant.

Appeal, as limited by the brief, from a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), imposed May 21, 2011, upon defendant's conviction, upon his plea of guilty, of driving while ability impaired.

ORDERED that the sentenced is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), and common law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). He pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired.

The record does not indicate that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification of defendant's sentence in the interest of justice, or that the Criminal Court abused its discretion by imposing a harsh sentence (see People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780, 783 [1992]; People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218, 1218-1219 [2010]; People v McKoy, 303 AD2d 842, 843 [2003]). He received the sentence he bargained for, obtained the benefits of the plea, and did not move to vacate his plea or modify the sentencing terms (see People v Torres, 69 AD3d 886, 887 [2010]; People v Barnes, 32 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term 9th & 10th Dists 2011]).

We decline defendant's request that we invoke our discretionary authority, in the interest of justice, to vacate the sentence, and instead, impose a sentence of time served, i.e., the one day he spent in jail after he was arrested (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; People v Cruz-Mateo, 40 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51131[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th, and 13th Jud Dists 2013]). Under the circumstances presented, we find that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]) and should not be disturbed.

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: March 10, 2014