Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. MINER

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
May 27, 1999
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reversing the defendant's conviction for aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was indicted on charges of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 Veh. Traf.[3]), driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 Veh. Traf.[1]), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 Veh. Traf.[3] [a]), and aggravated unlicensed operation of, a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 Veh. Traf.[2] [a] [iv]). The jury found the defendant not guilty of the first two charges.

Pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 Veh. Traf.(3) (a), a person is guilty of the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree as provided in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 Veh. Traf.(2) (a) (ii), (iii) or (iv) and is operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a drug in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 Veh. Traf.(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).

Here, in light of the defendant's acquittal on the charges under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 Veh. Traf.(1) and (3), an essential element for conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree is missing and therefore the verdict is repugnant ( see, People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Santucci, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.