People v Jackson (Michael)

[*1] People v Jackson (Michael) 2015 NY Slip Op 51464(U) Decided on September 17, 2015 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 17, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ.
2013-585 Q CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Michael Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Gene R. Lopez, J.), imposed January 30, 2013, upon his conviction of disorderly conduct, upon his plea of guilty.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Following defendant's arrest for driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [4-a]), and failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]), defendant pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20) pursuant to a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement in full satisfaction of the accusatory instrument, and was sentenced to, among other things, a $250 fine. He now seeks at least partial relief from the amount of the fine, which is the lawful maximum fine for the offense (see Penal Law § 80.05 [4]), on the ground that it is unduly harsh and excessive.

As a general rule, a defendant who has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement "has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive" (People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; see e.g. People v Galvez, 72 AD3d 838 [2010]; People v Ubiles, 59 AD3d 572 [2009]; People v Rosario, 47 Misc 3d 141[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50622[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2015]; People v Anant, 44 Misc 3d 138[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51252[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). We find no reason to conclude that the court abused its sentencing discretion or that "extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice" (People v Taylor, 44 Misc 3d 129[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50986[U], *1 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]; see CPL 470.15 [3]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]). The fine is not inherently onerous, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant lacks "the resources to pay . . . the fine, despite the appointment of assigned counsel to represent him" (People v Watson, 90 AD3d 1666, 1668 [2011]; see also People v Gallacher, 278 AD2d 935, 936 [2000] ["Although the fine is the maximum amount allowed by law, there is no evidence that defendant is unable to pay the fine"]; cf. People v Helm, 260 AD2d 803, 803 [1999] [fine reduced where "there is no dispute that defendant is indigent and qualified for assigned counsel . . . (because his) income (is) at or below the poverty level"]), and, indeed, he has paid the fine. In any event, given that, after being stopped for a traffic violation, defendant exhibited indicia of impairment by alcohol, and that a urine analysis revealed the presence of a [*2]metabolite of cannabis in his system (he admitted to the arresting officer that he had smoked marihuana only 15-20 minutes before being stopped), the $250 fine is not unduly harsh or excessive.

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: September 17, 2015