From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goldwire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 2, 2003
301 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

12659

Decided and Entered: January 2, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered September 21, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Jay L. Wilber, Public Defender, Binghamton (Thomas R. Cline of counsel), for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Benjamin K. Bergman of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and, Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty to the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and attempted assault in the second degree in exchange for sentencing as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years. On this appeal, defendant contends that the sentences imposed by County Court are harsh or excessive. Defendant, a second felony offender, received concurrent sentences that were well within the statutory guidelines and were the product of plea bargaining negotiations. Absent any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction in the interest of justice, the record before us provides no ground upon which to base a modification of defendant's sentence (see People v. Conyers, 285 A.D.2d 825, 827, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 680; People v. Archangel, 272 A.D.2d 686, 687).

The People concede, however, that the mandatory surcharge of $200 and the crime victim assistance fee of $10, imposed upon defendant for each of his convictions, constituted a violation of the US Constitution's ex post facto clause because defendant's convictions arose out of offenses committed in January 2000, prior to the effective date of the amendment to Penal Law § 60.35(1) (a). Accordingly, this matter is remitted to County Court for reconsideration of the mandatory surcharge and fee.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fees imposed upon defendant; matter remitted to the County Court of Broome County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Goldwire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 2, 2003
301 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Goldwire

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DUSHON GOLDWIRE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 2, 2003

Citations

301 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
752 N.Y.S.2d 906

Citing Cases

People v. Sullivan

Although the criminal conduct here occurred on April 3, 2000, after the date that the amendment stated that…

People v. Stephen M.

To impose the DNA databank fee under those circumstances would implicate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the…