PEOPLE v. JACKSON (2025)

ORDERED that the sentence, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Defendant, while represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) in satisfaction of an accusatory instrument that also charged defendant with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 165.40), aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1]), and driving without a license (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 509 [1]). In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to a one-year conditional discharge and a $250 fine. On appeal, defendant contends that, based on his indigency, the $250 fine portion of the negotiated sentence is excessive and that it should be vacated or reduced in the interest of justice.

As a general rule, a defendant who has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement will not be heard to complain that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive (see People v Galvez, 72 AD3d 838 [2010]; People v Ubiles, 59 AD3d 572 [2009]; People v Rowe, 74 Misc 3d 132[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50152[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]). Under the circumstances presented, we find no basis to deviate from that rule. The sentence imposed did not constitute an abuse of sentencing discretion or a failure to observe sentencing principles, and defendant has not demonstrated the existence of mitigating or extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302 [1981]; People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218 [2010]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; People v Harvey, 83 Misc 3d 132[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51167[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2024]; People v Cheme, 70 Misc 3d 129[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51519[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2020]). Although defendant alleges he is indigent, a defendant's economic situation “is but one of the factors that a court must consider when imposing a fine” (People v Oliver, 276 AD2d 930, 931 [2000]). “The fact that [a] defendant was represented by assigned counsel is insufficient, standing alone, to warrant the inference that he is unable to pay [a] fine” (People v Garcia, 59 Misc 3d 134[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50492[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]; see People v Bueno, 74 Misc 3d 135[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50291[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2022]).

Accordingly, the sentence, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.