Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Zaida SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered March 17, 2007, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of bribery in the third degree, driving while intoxicated (two counts), and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 6 months, concurrent with 5 years' probation, and imposing a fine of $2,500, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant has not established any basis for “deeming” her driving while intoxicated convictions to be misdemeanors. To the extent that she is claiming she did not knowingly and intelligently plead guilty to DWI as a felony, that claim is unpreserved (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665, 529 N.Y.S.2d 465, 525 N.E.2d 5 [1988] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Defendant's plea of guilty to the “entire indictment” clearly covered the felony DWI charges, and there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on her guilt (see People v. Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d 725, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160 [1995] ). As for her claim that the People failed to file a special information pursuant to CPL 200.60 charging that she had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated, that procedural defect was waived by defendant's guilty plea (People v. Gill, 109 A.D.2d 419, 420, 491 N.Y.S.2d 524 [1985]; People v. Giuliano, 52 A.D.2d 240, 243-244, 383 N.Y.S.2d 878 [1976]; see also Wright v. Davies, 41 A.D.2d 879, 880, 343 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1973] ). Furthermore, since the felony complaint specified the prior conviction that was the basis for the elevated felony charge, and the indictment specified that two counts were felony offenses, defendant was apprised that she was being charged with felonies.
We perceive no basis for reducing the fine.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 28, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)