Opinion
2017–04223 2017–04224 S.C.I. Nos. 278/16, 27/17
04-24-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gregory P. TIETJE, Appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree under Superior Court Information No. 278/16, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Superior Court Information No. 27/17, upon his pleas of guilty. On March 31, 2017, in accordance with the plea agreements, the County Court sentenced the defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years under Superior Court Information No. 278/16. This term of imprisonment was to run consecutively to an indeterminate term of imprisonment imposed in Ulster County, and to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years imposed under Superior Court Information No. 27/17. The latter two terms of imprisonment were to be served concurrently with each other.
On his appeal from the judgment under Superior Court Information No. 278/16, the defendant contends that his sentence is excessive to the extent that it was to run consecutively to the sentences he is serving in Ulster County and under Superior Court Information No. 27/17. On his appeal from the judgment under Superior Court Information No. 27/17, the defendant contends that, due to a procedural irregularity in the imposition of the mandatory surcharge, the DNA databank fee, and the crime victim assistance fee, he is entitled to have those items struck from the judgment of conviction.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the imposition of consecutive sentences renders them excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 256, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145 ). The defendant's contention regarding the irregularity in the imposition of the mandatory surcharge, the DNA databank fee, and the crime victim assistance fee survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Grof, 158 A.D.3d 818, 819, 68 N.Y.S.3d 895 ; People v. Thompson, 150 A.D.3d 1156, 52 N.Y.S.3d 675 ). However, the County Court's error, which was in the defendant's favor, does not entitle the defendant to the relief he seeks (see People v. Rodriguez, 162 A.D.3d 513, 514, 74 N.Y.S.3d 856 ; see generally People v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 730, 27 N.Y.S.3d 431, 47 N.E.3d 710 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., BALKIN, HINDS–RADIX and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.