People v. Smith, 100 A.D.3d 936

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating that portion of the sentence which imposed the forfeiture of the cellular telephone seized at the time of the defendant‘s arrest; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the County Court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice (see CPL 210.40 [1]; People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204 [1973]). However, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to raise that issue on appeal (see People v Travis, 205 AD2d 648, 648 [1994]; People v Merlo, 195 AD2d 576, 576 [1993]; People v Mitchell, 189 AD2d 900, 900 [1993]; People v Purcell, 161 AD2d 812, 813 [1990]; People v Macy, 100 AD2d 557, 557 [1984]).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to vacate that portion of the defendant‘s sentence which imposed the forfeiture of the cellular telephone seized at the time of his arrest. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Smith

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Nov 21, 2012

Citations: 100 A.D.3d 936; 954 N.Y.S.2d 187

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.