| People v Arvidson |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 01682 [159 AD3d 1198] |
| March 15, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James J.Arvidson, Appellant. |
LaMarche Safranko Law PLLC, Clifton Park (Andrew R. Safranko of counsel), forappellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), renderedSeptember 8, 2016, which revoked defendant's conditional discharge and imposed an additionalterm of imprisonment.
In 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensedoperation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. He was sentenced to an aggregate jail term of oneyear, followed by three years of conditional discharge for the driving while intoxicatedconviction. The term of the conditional discharge ran consecutively to the one-year jail term andrequired that an ignition interlock device be installed on any vehicle driven by defendant(see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [3]; 1193 [1] [c] [iii]; Penal Law§ 60.21). After he served his jail term, a declaration of delinquency was filed in2015, claiming that he violated his conditional discharge by operating a vehicle without anignition interlock device. In 2016, defendant admitted to violating the terms of his conditionaldischarge, and County Court revoked the conditional discharge and sentenced him to anadditional aggregate prison term of 1 to 3 years, to be followed by three years of conditionaldischarge. Defendant appeals.
The People concede, and we agree, that pursuant to our recent decision in People v Coon (156 AD3d 105[2017]), the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon defendant's violation of the terms of hisconditional discharge must be vacated. "A defendant must be sentenced according to the law as itexisted at the time that he or she committed the offense, and, at the time defendant operated avehicle without an ignition interlock device, the applicable law did not allow for the impositionof an additional period of imprisonment" (id. at 110 [internal quotation [*2]marks and citations omitted]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Aarons and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment ismodified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court ofUlster County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision; and, as somodified, affirmed.