AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY M. McDONALD, Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Rose, J.

Defendant operated a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition in Albany County and was charged in a superior court information (hereinafter SCI) with the crime of driving while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI) as a felony. The SCI was accompanied by a special information and two statements of prior conviction charging that defendant had twice been convicted of DWI in Warren County within the preceding 10 years. Defendant pleaded guilty as charged in the SCI, received a specific sentence commitment and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years to run consecutive to a prison term of 1½ to 4½ years imposed in connection with yet a third DWI conviction in Warren County. Defendant appeals.

Although defendant asserts that the SCI was legally insufficient to charge him with the crime of DWI as a felony because the supporting special information was factually inadequate for failure to specify his date of birth, he failed to object to the SCI before County Court and has not preserved this claim for appellate review (see, People v. Torres, 96 A.D.2d 604, 605). In any event, defendant's knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty would preclude us from reviewing the sufficiency of the factual allegations contained in the SCI (see, People v. Price, 234 A.D.2d 978, 978-979, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 862; People v. Fields, 208 A.D.2d 1050, 1050, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 735; People v. Dezimm, 193 A.D.2d 976, 976).

In view of defendant's explicit waiver of his right to appeal the agreed-upon sentence, we will not consider his contention that it is harsh and excessive (see, People v. Allen, 82 N.Y.2d 761, 762; People v. Deemer, 261 A.D.2d 722). We have reviewed defendant's remaining claim and found it to be unavailing.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. McDONALD
(Jun 20, 2002)