Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester County (Sam R. Watkins, J.), rendered March 5, 2008. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two charges of driving while intoxicated.

Judgments modified on the law by vacating the sentence imposed and matter remanded to the court below for resentencing upon an updated presentence report; as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2], [3]). He executed a general waiver of rights, which included the right to appeal. At sentencing, the People introduced the presentence report prepared by the Probation Department, which contained the finding that defendant has a substance abuse problem with regard to alcohol. Defendant submitted a presentence memorandum containing findings by his doctor that he does not have a substance abuse problem and that the instant charges stemmed from a single occurrence. Defense counsel argued at sentencing that the Probation Department's presentence report was incomplete since it did not contain a finding from Phelps Alcohol Treatment Services regarding defendant's level of substance abuse. The court reviewed defendant's presentence memorandum and indicated that the presentence report issued by the Probation Department would not be determinative of the sentence to be imposed. The court imposed a single sentence of three years' probation and a fine of $500.

We agree with defendant that the record fails to reveal that his waiver of the right to appeal was "obtained under constitutionally acceptable circumstances" (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]), as there is no indication that defendant was informed by his counsel, the court, or the waiver form, as to the consequences of such a waiver that are "separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty" (People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Consequently, we reject the People's contention that the appeal must be dismissed. [*2]

CPL 380.20 requires that where convictions are entered on multiple charges, the court must pronounce sentence upon each charge (see People v Sturgis, 69 NY2d 816, 817 [1987]; People v Sacco, 294 AD2d 452, 453 [2002]; People v Caravousanos, 2 Misc 3d 7 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]). Since the trial court erred in imposing a single fine and term of probation covering both convictions of driving while intoxicated, the sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded to the court below for resentencing upon an updated presentence report. In view of the foregoing, the issues raised on appeal concerning the sentence are rendered moot.

Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 12, 2009