You are here: / / COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE INCARCERATION FOR...

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE INCARCERATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED HIS ONE YEAR DEFINITE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION FOR FELONY DWI AND WAS IN THE CONSECUTIVE PERIOD OF CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE WHEN HE DROVE WITHOUT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, reversing County Court, determined defendant, who had completed his one-year definite sentence for felony DWI, could not be sentenced to further incarceration for violating the terms of the conditional discharge by driving without an ignition interlock device:

​

Defendant served the one-year jail term and … served it first. …[D]efendant did not serve part of his one-year sentence; rather, he completed the entirety of that definite sentence. Because of the statutory command of Penal Law § 60.21, the conditional discharge period had to run consecutively to the period of incarceration and, therefore, commenced upon his release from jail. It was during the time following defendant’s completion of the one-year definite sentence that he admittedly operated a vehicle without an ignition interlock device and violated the terms of the conditional discharge. The statutory framework governing sentencing does not cover these factual circumstances. The enactment of Penal Law § 60.21 spawned the type of sentence that was imposed upon defendant in 2013 for his DWI conviction — i.e., a definite term of incarceration with a period of conditional discharge to run consecutively. There were, however, no corresponding statutes or amendments to already existing statutes that delineated the type of sanctions that courts could impose in a case such as this one. * * *

​

“A defendant must be sentenced according to the law as it existed at the time that he or she committed the offense”…  and, at the time defendant operated a vehicle without an ignition interlock device, the applicable law did not allow for the imposition of an additional period of imprisonment as done by County Court and as advocated by the People. Accordingly, defendant’s sentence of 2 to 6 years followed by three years of conditional discharge must be vacated. People v Coon, 2017 NY Slip Op 08216, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE INCARCERATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED HIS ONE YEAR DEFINITE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION FOR FELONY DWI AND WAS IN THE CONSECUTIVE PERIOD OF CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE WHEN HE DROVE WITHOUT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE INCARCERATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED HIS ONE YEAR DEFINITE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION FOR FELONY DWI AND WAS IN THE CONSECUTIVE PERIOD OF CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE WHEN HE DROVE WITHOUT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE (THIRD DEPT))/CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE INCARCERATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE, DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED HIS ONE YEAR DEFINITE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION FOR FELONY DWI AND WAS IN THE CONSECUTIVE PERIOD OF CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE WHEN HE DROVE WITHOUT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Mayor Removed from Office for Unscrupulous Conduct
MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AWARE OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY SUCH THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY COUNSEL WAS TRIGGERED (THIRD DEPT).
Conditioning Plea Offer Upon Withdrawal of a Constitutional Speedy Trial Motion Is an Inherently Coercive Mode of Proceedings Error
THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING HAD BEEN DENIED, THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION, SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF A BID ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, WAS THEREFORE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION’S DUTIES TO INSPECT HORSES AND EQUIPMENT BEFORE A HARNESS RACE ARE PROPRIETARY, NOT GOVERMENTAL, IN NATURE; THEREFORE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES APPLY AND THE IMMUNITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE; DURING THE RACE A HORSE FELL AND CLAIMANT’S HORSE COLLIDED WITH THE FALLEN HORSE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE FALLEN HORSE’S EQUIPMENT AND WHETHER THE HORSE EXHIBITED INDICATIONS HE WAS LAME; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILTY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE; REGULATIONS RE: THE INSPECTION OF HORSES AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE IMPUTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Failure to Move to Withdraw Plea, and Thereby Preserve the Issue for Appeal, Did Not Prohibit Appeal Here—Defendant Was Wrongly Informed by the Court and Counsel that the Denial of His Speedy Trial Motion Would Be Appealable After the Plea
CLAIMANT’S INJURIES DID NOT ARISE OUT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT; CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A CAR CROSSING THE STREET IN FRONT OF HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Even When the Injured Worker, Who Had Received Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Successfully Sues His Employer (As Opposed to a “Stranger”) for His Injuries, the Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has a Lien Against the Recovery Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law 29(1)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SERVICE AND VENUE PROVISIONS IN CONTRACT WITH A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DID... OFFICER’S PURSUIT, FORCIBLE STOP, DETENTION AND ARREST OF FLEEING DEFENDANT...