From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 14, 1997
237 A.D.2d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Summary

In People v. Barnett, 654 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y.App.Div. 1997), the appellate court affirmed a county court order requiring a defendant to pay restitution to reimburse the police for damage which the defendant had caused to a police car, finding that such damage was not a normal cost of providing law enforcement services.

Summary of this case from Anglin v. State

Opinion

March 14, 1997.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following

Present — Pine, J.P., Lawton, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.


Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of felony driving while intoxicated, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree and criminal contempt in the first degree. We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in ordering him, as part of the sentence, to pay restitution to the New York State Police Department. Contrary to defendant's contention, the restitution did not reimburse the police for the normal operating costs of law enforcement that are voluntarily incurred ( cf., People v Watson, 197 AD2d 880; People v Dulanski, 175 AD2d 672); instead, it covered the cost of repairing a police car that was damaged as a direct result of defendant's criminal conduct ( see, People v Cruz, 81 NY2d 996, 998).

The court erred, however, in determining the amount of restitution to be $8,227 without holding a hearing on that issue. The court directed that defendant reimburse the New York State Police Department in that amount based upon an estimate of damage provided by that Department during the presentence investigation. Defendant did not make a statement at either the plea hearing or at sentencing sufficient to support the determination of the amount of restitution ( see, People v Consalvo, 89 NY2d 140, 144-145). Consequently, the court was required to hold a hearing to determine the amount of restitution. Thus, we modify the judgment by vacating the amount of restitution awarded, and we remit the matter to Erie County Court for that purpose.

Finally, in view of defendant's criminal record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe ( see, CPL 470.15 [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — Felony Driving While Intoxicated.)


Summaries of

People v. Barnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 14, 1997
237 A.D.2d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

In People v. Barnett, 654 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y.App.Div. 1997), the appellate court affirmed a county court order requiring a defendant to pay restitution to reimburse the police for damage which the defendant had caused to a police car, finding that such damage was not a normal cost of providing law enforcement services.

Summary of this case from Anglin v. State
Case details for

People v. Barnett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL BARNETT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 14, 1997

Citations

237 A.D.2d 917 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
654 N.Y.S.2d 918

Citing Cases

State v. Shears

Id. at 501–02.Another criminal restitution case involving recovery of damages to a police car is People v.…

People v. Ford

Many courts have required defendants to pay restitution to police departments when they damage police…