¶1Judgment, insofar as it sentences defendant as a second felony offender, unanimously reversed, on the law, and defendant remanded to Cayuga County Court for resentencing in accordance with memorandum, and, otherwise, judgment affirmed. Memorandum: Following his pleas of guilty to three counts of driving while intoxicated defendant received three concurrent sentences of two to four years’ imprisonment as a second felony offender (Penal Law, § 70.06). Defendant correctly contends that he may not be sentenced as a second felony offender upon his convictions of driving while intoxicated. Section 70.06 (subd 1, par [a]) of the Penal Law provides: “A second felony offender is a person … who stands convicted of a felony defined in this chapter … after having previously been subjected to one or more predicate felony convictions”. Driving while intoxicated is not a felony defined by the Penal Law and, therefore, it is exempt from section 70.06 of the Penal Law (see People v Smith, 58 AD2d 635; People v Tyler, 46 AD2d 997). The sentencing court did not have the discretion to impose sentence of two to four years’ imprisonment upon a conviction of driving while intoxicated. Section 55.10 (subd 1, par [b]) of the Penal Law provides: “Any offense defined *764outside this chapter which is declared by law to be a felony without specification of the classification thereof … shall be deemed a class E felony”. Driving while intoxicated is such an offense (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192, subd 5; see, also, Penal Law, § 70.00, subd 2, par [e]; subd 3, par [b]). We have examined defendant’s other contentions on this appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — driving while intoxicated.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.
86 A.D.2d 763
People v. Morris
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 29, 1982
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1982-01-29
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1989
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1982-01-29
View the full empirical analysis of this case →