People v. Brigham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brigham

168 A.D.2d 713, 564 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14820

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 713 (People v. Brigham) 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. Brigham, 168 A.D.2d 713, 564 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Mogavero, Jr., J.), rendered March 5, 1990, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant primarily argues that the one-year term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his probation was harsh and excessive. However, he admitted his guilt to all of the charges in the declaration of delinquency including his failure to enroll in a required alcohol program. Given defendant’s criminal record, which involves various offenses result[714]*714ing from his alcohol problem, as well as his continued resistance to alcohol counseling, County Court’s imposition of a sentence which was well within the statutory guidelines was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Nazarian, 150 AD2d 923, lv denied 74 NY2d 744). Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s claim, the record shows that he was given ample opportunity to explain his failure to comply with the conditions of probation, and that he also received effective assistance of counsel.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Mogavero, Jr., J.), rendered March 5, 1990, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant primarily argues that the one-year term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his probation was harsh and excessive. However, he admitted his guilt to all of the charges in the declaration of delinquency including his failure to enroll in a required alcohol program. Given defendant’s criminal record, which involves various offenses result[714]*714ing from his alcohol problem, as well as his continued resistance to alcohol counseling, County Court’s imposition of a sentence which was well within the statutory guidelines was not an abuse of discretion (see, People v Nazarian, 150 AD2d 923, lv denied 74 NY2d 744). Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s claim, the record shows that he was given ample opportunity to explain his failure to comply with the conditions of probation, and that he also received effective assistance of counsel.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 713, 564 N.Y.S.2d 495, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brigham-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack