PEOPLE v. RHINEHART

Decided and Entered: January 30,2003
13917

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent,
v
KENNETH P. RHINEHART,
Appellant.

Calendar Date: December 30, 2002
Befo.....

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Decided and Entered: January 30,2003 13917 ________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v KENNETH P. RHINEHART, Appellant. ________________________________ Calendar Date: December 30, 2002 Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ. __________ Theresa M. Suozzi, Saratoga Springs, for appellant. James A. Murphy III, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Nicholas E. Tishler of counsel), for respondent. __________ Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano Jr., J.), rendered January 17, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. In satisfaction of a multicount indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 1 to 3 years on each crime and a $500 fine in connection with his conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. Given his waiver of his right to appeal as part of a voluntary, knowing and intelligent plea of guilty, defendant is precluded from claiming that the sentence imposed is harsh or excessive (see People v McDonald, 295 AD2d 756, lv denied98 NY2d 711; People v Bluteau, 271 AD2d 761). Were we to consider the issue, however, we would find the agreed-upon sentence is not harsh or excessive and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hastings, 271 AD2d 707; People v Alexander, 256 AD2d 742, lv denied 93 NY2d 849). Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. ENTER: Michael J. Novack Clerk of the Court

PEOPLE v. RHINEHART

Decided and Entered: January 30,2003 13917 ________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v KENNETH P. RHINEHART, Appellant. ________________________________ Calendar Date: December 30, 2002 Befo.....

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

Decided and Entered: January 30,2003
13917

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent,
v
KENNETH P. RHINEHART,
Appellant.

Calendar Date: December 30, 2002
Befo.....