| People v Tietje |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 03087 [171 AD3d 1221] |
| April 24, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gregory P. Tietje, Appellant. |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel),for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Dutchess County(Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), both rendered March 31, 2017, convicting him of aggravatedunlicensed 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 informationNo. 27/17, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in thefirst degree under superior court information No. 278/16, and criminal possession of a weapon inthe third degree under superior court information No. 27/17, upon his pleas of guilty. On March31, 2017, in accordance with the plea agreements, the County Court sentenced the defendant toan 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 ofimprisonment imposed in Ulster County, and to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4years imposed under superior court information No. 27/17. The latter two terms of imprisonmentwere to be served concurrently with each other.
On his appeal from the judgment under superior court information No. 278/16, the defendantcontends that his sentence is excessive to the extent that it was to run consecutively to thesentences he is serving in Ulster County and under superior court information No. 27/17. On hisappeal from the judgment under superior court information No. 27/17, the defendant contendsthat, due to a procedural irregularity in the imposition of the mandatory surcharge, the DNAdatabank fee, and the crime victim assistance fee, he is entitled to have those items struck fromthe judgment of conviction.
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that theimposition of consecutive sentences renders them excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The defendant'scontention regarding the irregularity in the imposition of the mandatory surcharge, the DNAdatabank fee, and the crime victim assistance fee survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Grof, 158 AD3d 818,819 [2018]; People v Thompson,150 AD3d 1156 [2017]). However, the County Court's error, which was in the defendant'sfavor, does not entitle the defendant to the relief he seeks (see People v Rodriguez, 162 AD3d 513, 514 [2018]; see generally People v Jones, 26 NY3d730 [2016]). Scheinkman, P.J., Balkin, Hinds-Radix and Christopher, JJ., concur.