AUCTER, STEVEN, PEOPLE v ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    590
    KA 10-00161
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    STEVEN L. AUCTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY J. BRENNAN, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (BRIAN N. BAUERSFELD OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G.
    Leone, J.), rendered November 12, 2009. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of
    marihuana in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property
    in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
    degree, possession of burglar’s tools, resisting arrest and criminal
    possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal possession of stolen
    property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and possession of
    burglar’s tools (§ 140.35). Defendant contends that County Court
    erred in imposing restitution in the amount of $21,000 without
    conducting a restitution hearing pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (2).
    We reject that contention. Indeed, the record establishes that the
    court did not impose restitution but, instead, defendant agreed in
    writing to forfeit the funds in question to the Cayuga County District
    Attorney’s Office pursuant to CPLR article 13-A (see People v
    Concepcion, 188 AD2d 483). In any event, even assuming, arguendo,
    that the funds constituted restitution, we conclude that defendant
    failed to preserve his contention for our review “ ‘inasmuch as he
    failed to object to the amount of restitution at sentencing or to
    request a hearing with respect thereto’ ” (People v Wright, 79 AD3d
    1789, 1790; see People v Hannig, 68 AD3d 1779, 1780, lv denied 14 NY3d
    801), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention
    as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15
    [6] [a]).
    Entered:   June 10, 2011                           Patricia L. Morgan
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 10-00161

Filed Date: 6/10/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016