PEOPLE v. SNYDER (2000)

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of one count of driving while ability impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[1] ), two counts of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511[3] ), and two counts of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2], [3];  § 1193[1][c] ), arising out of three separate incidents.   When the trial commenced, defendant admitted to three special informations filed by the People alleging prior convictions for driving while under the influence and driving while intoxicated and acknowledged that his license was revoked for one of those convictions (see, CPL 200.60).   There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the special informations were inadequate (see, People v. Smith, 183 A.D.2d 653, 654, 584 N.Y.S.2d 795, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 910, 588 N.Y.S.2d 835, 602 N.E.2d 243).

Because all charges were based on the same or similar statutory provisions, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to sever (see, CPL 200.20[2][c];  People v. O'Connor, 242 A.D.2d 908, 909, 662 N.Y.S.2d 951, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 895, 669 N.Y.S.2d 9, 691 N.E.2d 1035).   Defendant failed to make a convincing showing that he would be unduly and genuinely prejudiced by the joint trial of the charges and failed to demonstrate in concrete terms that he had a strong need to refrain from testifying concerning the charges arising from one incident and important testimony to present concerning the charges arising from the other incidents (see, People v. Cabrera, 188 A.D.2d 1062, 1063, 592 N.Y.S.2d 171;  see also, People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 7-9, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456).

Contrary to the contention of defendant, he received meaningful representation from the first attorney who represented him (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: