People v Tehonica
2007 NY Slip Op 09626 [46 AD3d 942]
December 6, 2007
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony J.Tehonica, Appellant.

[*1]Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant.

Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Laurie L. Paro of counsel), forrespondent.

Kane, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.),rendered September 5, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant was charged with assault in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree in connection with a bar fight where he struck an individual with apool cue. During the charge conference following the conclusion of the proof at trial, CountyCourt denied defendant's request for a justification charge. Defendant then pleaded guilty toattempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in exchange for a prison sentenceof 1½ to 3 years, with a recommendation of shock incarceration. The court imposed thatsentence, but also ordered defendant to pay $10,889.40 in restitution. Defendant appeals.

By pleading guilty, defendant waived his right to challenge County Court's ruling on hisrequest for a justification charge (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000];People v Thompson, 287 AD2d 794, 796 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 688[2001]). This issue, which concerns an evidentiary ruling not a jurisdictional or constitutionalmatter, does not survive defendant's guilty plea (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d at230-231).

The People concede that restitution was not part of the plea agreement. Consequently, [*2]defendant should have been given the opportunity to eitherwithdraw his plea or accept the enhanced sentence, which included restitution (see People v Snyder, 23 AD3d761, 762 [2005]; People vHarrington, 3 AD3d 737, 739 [2004]). We remit for that purpose. If restitution isordered, a hearing should be held regarding the appropriate amount (see People v Snyder,23 AD3d at 763).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment ismodified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court ofSt. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, asso modified, affirmed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.