People v. Allen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Allen

252 A.D.2d 682, 675 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8205

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 682 (People v. Allen) 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. Allen, 252 A.D.2d 682, 675 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered April 30, 1996, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a term of imprisonment, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered April 30, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that the consecutive prison terms of 1 to 4 years each in connection with his violation of probation and plea of guilty of grand larceny in fourth degree are harsh and excessive. The record reveals that defendant was unwilling to comply with the terms of his probation, notwithstanding the fact that County Court afforded defendant [683]*683repeated opportunities to do so. Based upon our review of the record, we decline to disturb the sentences imposed and find the consecutive nature of the sentences to be appropriate (see, People v DeFayette, 241 AD2d 761, lv denied 90 NY2d 939; see also, People v Novack, 233 AD2d 617). Finally, while defendant’s substance abuse problem and unstable home environment, among other factors, are unfortunate, under the circumstances presented here we do not find these excuses to be so significant as to warrant a reduction of the sentences in the interest of justice.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

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

—Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered April 30, 1996, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a term of imprisonment, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered April 30, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that the consecutive prison terms of 1 to 4 years each in connection with his violation of probation and plea of guilty of grand larceny in fourth degree are harsh and excessive. The record reveals that defendant was unwilling to comply with the terms of his probation, notwithstanding the fact that County Court afforded defendant [683]*683repeated opportunities to do so. Based upon our review of the record, we decline to disturb the sentences imposed and find the consecutive nature of the sentences to be appropriate (see, People v DeFayette, 241 AD2d 761, lv denied 90 NY2d 939; see also, People v Novack, 233 AD2d 617). Finally, while defendant’s substance abuse problem and unstable home environment, among other factors, are unfortunate, under the circumstances presented here we do not find these excuses to be so significant as to warrant a reduction of the sentences in the interest of justice.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 682, 675 N.Y.S.2d 916, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-allen-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack