Opinion

BROWN, CLAYTON L., PEOPLE v

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Oct 2, 2015
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

969

KA 15-00309

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CLAYTON L. BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

EASTON THOMPSON KASPEREK SHIFFRIN LLP, ROCHESTER (BRIAN SHIFFRIN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G.

Reed, A.J.), rendered May 14, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree,

criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and aggravated

unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed on

count three of the indictment and imposing a definite sentence of 180

days of imprisonment on that count, to run concurrently with the

sentences imposed on counts one and two, and as modified the judgment

is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree

(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]), criminal possession of a weapon in

the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of

a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511

[2] [a] [ii]). As the People correctly concede, the sentence imposed

on count three of the indictment, i.e., a one-year definite term of

imprisonment for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in

the second degree, is illegal (see § 511 [2] [b]). We therefore

modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed on that count and

imposing a definite sentence of 180 days of imprisonment, to run

concurrently with the sentences on the remaining counts. We reject

defendant’s further contention that the sentences imposed on the

remaining counts are unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: October 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.