You are here: / / Imposition of Fine After Promise No Fine Would Be Imposed Required Vacation...

Imposition of Fine After Promise No Fine Would Be Imposed Required Vacation of Guilty Plea

The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence because County Court promised the sentence would not include a fine, but County Court imposed a fine because a fine was required by law.  The court wrote:

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with two counts of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.  County Court agreed, in return, to sentence him to an aggregate jail term of one year with no fines.  While County Court sentenced defendant to the contemplated jail term, it further imposed a fine of $1,000 on each count.  Defendant now appeals.

County Court promised defendant that his sentence would not include a fine, but such sentence would have been illegal (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [b]…). The legal sentence that County Court imposed was inconsistent with that promise.  Although defendant failed to preserve this issue by moving to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, the sentence must nevertheless “be vacated, and the matter remitted . . . to afford . . . defendant the opportunity to accept the sentence that was actually imposed, or permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty”… .  People v Faulcon, 104625, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

You might also like
COUNTY COURT, SUA SPONTE, IN GRANTING THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, RELIED ON FACTORS ABOUT WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED BEFORE THE SORA HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING AFTER PROPER NOTICE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS NEARLY 17 AND NO FORCE WAS INVOLVED (THIRD DEPT).
WHERE A WITNESS STATES SHE DOES NOT RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CALL SOMEONE WHO HEARD THE WITNESS MAKE THE STATEMENT TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION AS A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT.
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCIDENTAL AND PERFORMANCE OF DUTY RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL DOWN A STAIRWAY LEADING TO THE RESTAURANT BASEMENT WHICH WAS ACCESSED BY AN UNMARKED, UNLOCKED DOOR; ALTHOUGH THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT WITNESSED, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WHERE METHAMPHETAMINE WAS BEING PRODUCED AND APPARENT POSSESSION (IN A BACKPACK) OF CHEMICAL REAGENTS (BATTERIES AND SALT) USED IN METH PRODUCTION, WERE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF METH LAB EQUIPMENT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
CPLR 5003-A, WHICH MANDATES PROMPT PAYMENT OF A SETTLEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF, DOES NOT APPLY TO PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES REQUIRED BY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 3RD DEPT.
MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS CONCERNING WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE MORE APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS, CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A MISSISSIPPI COURT (THIRD DEPT).

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

Criteria for Payment from Special Fund Explained Statements Made In Plea Allocution Negated Guilt