"REMORSELESS SCOFFLAW" AVOIDS JAIL

In People v. Iacono, Iacono was arrested for driving an uninsured, unregistered vehicle.

When the Nassau County District Court accepted his guilty plea, it informed Iacono that he would have to pay $800 in fines and surcharges, would need to avoid rearrest, and, appear on the sentencing date. If he failed to comply, the court warned Iacono that he would be punished to the "fullest extent of the law."

When he returned to court, Iacono asked for additional time to remit payment of the monies assessed. But since it believed Iacono had been sufficiently warned of the consequences of noncompliance, the court sentenced the defendant to "concurrent 15-day jail terms."

On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, thought the trial judge hadn't sufficiently explained what "fullest extent of the law" meant and vacated the sentences.

A lone dissenter -- Justice McCabe -- believed the District Court meted out appropriate punishment as Iacono was a "remorseless scofflaw" and "repeat offender."

McCabe felt the defendant had been adequately advised of the possible jail time, and that the latter "acknowledged" what he had been told by the judge. As far as this dissenter was concerned, showing up with only part payment, thinking that was sufficient, didn't pass muster.

Bet Iacono understood all of that.

To download a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: People v. Iacono