People v. DerrigPeople v. Derrig
Decided and Entered: September 19, 2019
109890
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric J. Derrig, Appellant.
Calendar Date: August 30, 2019
Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
Adam H. Van Buskirk, Auburn, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Kirk O. Martin, District Attorney, Owego (Sandra L. Cardone of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tioga County (Keene, J.), rendered May 20, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of seven years followed by three years of postrelease supervision. County Court granted defendant‘s request for release pending sentencing, warning defendant that it would not be bound by its sentencing commitment if defendant was arrested on new charges or otherwise failed to appear. Following a traffic stop in Pennsylvania and the discovery of drugs in the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger, defendant was returned to County Court on a warrant in anticipation of additional drug-related charges being filed in Pennsylvania. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an enhanced sentence of 7½ years in prison, followed by three years of postrelease supervision. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. Defendant argues that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence because he did not violate the terms of the plea agreement. At the time of sentencing, defendant had not been formally charged based upon the events that transpired in Pennsylvania because authorities in that state were awaiting confirmation that the substance seized in the traffic stop was heroin. Because he was not actually “arrested” on new charges, defendant‘s argument continues, he should not have been subject to an enhanced sentence. The record
Although defendant argues that County Court should have recused itself, to the extent that this issue has been preserved for our review, we find it to be lacking in merit, as the record fails to reflect either a statutory basis for disqualification (see
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.