People v. PetixPeople v. Petix
—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant, while represented by counsel, knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily executed a waiver of indictment and consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with burglary in the first degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of burglary in the second degree. As part of the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to an inde
We reject the contention that defendant’s guilty plea was involuntarily obtained because of the existence of a possible "defense” of intoxication. Despite defendant’s professed inability to recall all the events underlying the burglary charge, the record of the plea allocution establishes that defendant knowingly waived a possible intoxication defense (cf., People v Bartleson,
There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the court erred in ordering restitution without conducting a hearing to determine the amount. A hearing was not necessary because the record was sufficient to allow the court to make a finding "as to the dollar amount of * * * the actual out-of-pocket loss to the victim caused by the offense” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; see, People v Welsher,
Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement, and we conclude that the negotiated sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.