People v. Bender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bender

24 A.D.3d 819, 805 N.Y.S.2d 443

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 819 (People v. Bender) 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. Bender, 24 A.D.3d 819, 805 N.Y.S.2d 443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered October 7, 2004, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In May 2003, after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal contempt in the first degree grounded upon a violation of an order of protection concerning defendant’s paramour, defendant was sentenced to five years probation. A permanent order of [820]*820protection was issued to prevent defendant from harassing, annoying or alarming her. In June 2004, a declaration of delinquency was filed, alleging that defendant violated his probation. After a hearing, County Court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Addressing the statutory requirement of a prompt hearing {see CPL 410.70 [1]), the record demonstrates that there was neither a statutory nor due process violation (see People v Harris, 301 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]) because defendant’s hearing was delayed as a result of his own requests.

* With respect to those contentions alleging calendaring delays, we find that County Court properly exercised its discretion in managing its docket (see People v Brewer, 91 NY2d 999, 1000 [1998]).

As to the merits, defendant’s admissions at the hearing were sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he violated the terms of his probation (see People v Parsons, 15 AD3d 728, 728 [2005]; People v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744, 745 [2004]). Further finding neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in defendant’s sentence (see People v Perkins, 5 AD3d 801, 804 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 741 [2004]; People v Meyer, 1 AD3d 721, 721 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), we affirm.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

One request was to have more time to consider a plea offer and the other request was in connection with a substitution of counsel.

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

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered October 7, 2004, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In May 2003, after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal contempt in the first degree grounded upon a violation of an order of protection concerning defendant’s paramour, defendant was sentenced to five years probation. A permanent order of [820]*820protection was issued to prevent defendant from harassing, annoying or alarming her. In June 2004, a declaration of delinquency was filed, alleging that defendant violated his probation. After a hearing, County Court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Addressing the statutory requirement of a prompt hearing {see CPL 410.70 [1]), the record demonstrates that there was neither a statutory nor due process violation (see People v Harris, 301 AD2d 753, 753-754 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]) because defendant’s hearing was delayed as a result of his own requests.

* With respect to those contentions alleging calendaring delays, we find that County Court properly exercised its discretion in managing its docket (see People v Brewer, 91 NY2d 999, 1000 [1998]).

As to the merits, defendant’s admissions at the hearing were sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he violated the terms of his probation (see People v Parsons, 15 AD3d 728, 728 [2005]; People v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744, 745 [2004]). Further finding neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in defendant’s sentence (see People v Perkins, 5 AD3d 801, 804 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 741 [2004]; People v Meyer, 1 AD3d 721, 721 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), we affirm.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

One request was to have more time to consider a plea offer and the other request was in connection with a substitution of counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 819, 805 N.Y.S.2d 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bender-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack