People v. Agina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Agina

66 A.D.3d 915, 886 N.Y.S.2d 630

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.3d 915 (People v. Agina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Agina, 66 A.D.3d 915, 886 N.Y.S.2d 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered June 17, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Grosso, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment and postrelease supervision upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was provided with fair notice of the charged misconduct through the specification of the alleged violation of probation (see CPL 410.70 [2]; People v Crawford, 61 AD3d 774, 775 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]; People v Simone, 13 AD3d 71 [2004]). The third specification of the violation of probation identified the defendant’s conduct as including, inter alia, “Assault 2 (sub 02),” unlawful imprisonment, and endangering the welfare of a child, and was understood as such by defense counsel during summation. The court’s finding that the defendant’s conduct violated a condition of his probation, specifically that he lead a law-abiding life, was “based ‘upon a preponderance of the evidence which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record’ ” (People v Washington, 55 AD3d 933, 934 [2008], quoting People v Matula, 258 AD2d 670, 670-671 [1999]; see CPL 410.70 [3]). Accordingly, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered June 17, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Grosso, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment and postrelease supervision upon his previous conviction of assault in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was provided with fair notice of the charged misconduct through the specification of the alleged violation of probation (see CPL 410.70 [2]; People v Crawford, 61 AD3d 774, 775 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]; People v Simone, 13 AD3d 71 [2004]). The third specification of the violation of probation identified the defendant’s conduct as including, inter alia, “Assault 2 (sub 02),” unlawful imprisonment, and endangering the welfare of a child, and was understood as such by defense counsel during summation. The court’s finding that the defendant’s conduct violated a condition of his probation, specifically that he lead a law-abiding life, was “based ‘upon a preponderance of the evidence which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record’ ” (People v Washington, 55 AD3d 933, 934 [2008], quoting People v Matula, 258 AD2d 670, 670-671 [1999]; see CPL 410.70 [3]). Accordingly, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 915, 886 N.Y.S.2d 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-agina-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack