People v. Neal

• Decision Date: 24 March 2017
• Docket Number: 1142 KA 14-00127.
• Citation: 50 N.Y.S.3d 666,148 A.D.3d 1699
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alan D. NEAL, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

148 A.D.3d 1699

50 N.Y.S.3d 666

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Alan D. NEAL, Defendant–Appellant.

1142 KA 14-00127.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

March 24, 2017.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Drew R. Dubrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Alan D. Neal, Defendant–Appellant pro se.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[3] ; 1193[1][c][ii] ), defendant contends in his main brief that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because County Court failed to advise him of the amount of the fine to be imposed before he pleaded guilty. Although that contention survives defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v. Watkins, 77 A.D.3d 1403, 1403, 909 N.Y.S.2d 233, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 956, 917 N.Y.S.2d 116, 942 N.E.2d 327 ; People v. Baker, 49 A.D.3d 1293, 1293, 852 N.Y.S.2d 867, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court advised him at the time of the plea that it could impose a fine in addition to a term of incarceration, and thus preservation was required (see generally People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 ).

As the People correctly concede, however, the court erred in imposing a $1,500 fine. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193(1)(c)(ii) provides that a person convicted of driving while intoxicated as a class D felony "shall be punished by a fine of not less than two thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars or by a period of imprisonment as provided in the penal law, or by both such fine and imprisonment." The court therefore had the authority to impose a fine and a sentence of imprisonment, but was required to impose a minimum fine of $2,000 if it chose to impose any fine. We cannot allow the $1,500 illegal fine to stand (see generally People v. VanValkinburgh, 90 A.D.3d 1553, 1554, 934 N.Y.S.2d 904 ) and, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, we conclude that no fine should be imposed. We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the fine.

With respect to the jurisdictional challenges to the felony complaint and his arraignment thereon in the pro se supplemental brief, "[t]he felony complaint was superseded by the indictment to which defendant pleaded guilty, and he therefore may not challenge the felony complaint" (People v. Anderson, 90 A.D.3d 1475, 1477, 935 N.Y.S.2d 237, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 991, 945 N.Y.S.2d 646, 968 N.E.2d 1002 ; see People v. Mitchell, 132 A.D.3d 1413, 1416, 17 N.Y.S.3d 563, lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1072, 38 N.Y.S.3d 842, 60 N.E.3d 1208 ). Defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his challenges in his pro se supplemental brief to the court's suppression rulings (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831, 833, 703 N.Y.S.2d 59, 724 N.E.2d 754 ). Furthermore, the remaining contentions in defendant's pro se supplemental brief do not " ‘implicate the voluntariness of the plea and thus [they are] also encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal’ " (People v. Russell, 128 A.D.3d 1383, 1384, 7 N.Y.S.3d 790, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1207, 16 N.Y.S.3d 529, 37 N.E.3d 1172 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed...