From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

KA 00-02856

December 30, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of Erie County Court (Drury, J.), entered November 9, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of scheme to defraud in the first degree.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (LOUISE M. SZIMONISZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DON I. DALLY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE, AND BURNS, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the amount of restitution ordered and as modified the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum:

The sentencing minutes reveal that County Court imposed restitution in the amount of $1,883 based on the conviction of defendant upon his plea of guilty of scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65 [a]). The certificate of conviction, however, indicates that restitution in the amount of $1,903 was imposed. Because of the discrepancy between the sentencing minutes and the certificate of conviction, the amount of restitution ordered must be vacated and the matter remitted to Erie County Court to determine the proper amount of restitution ( see People v. Diola, 299 A.D.2d 962 [Nov 15, 2002]; cf. People v. Shand, 280 A.D.2d 943, 944, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 834; People v. Ingram, 263 A.D.2d 959, 960). Assuming, arguendo, that defendant had preserved for our review his further contention that the court erred in ordering restitution without considering his ability to pay, we conclude that defendant's contention lacks merit. "[I]t [is] not necessary for the court, in ordering restitution in addition to imprisonment, to consider defendant's ability to pay" ( People v. Emmi, 254 A.D.2d 840, 840, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 949; see People v. Weinberg, 213 A.D.2d 506, 507, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 970). Finally, the sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 4 years is neither unduly harsh nor severe.


Summaries of

People v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Holmes

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DAVID HOLMES…

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 1072 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

People v. Travis

However, to the extent that defendant further argues that the restitution order should have been vacated due…

People v. Knapp

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §…