People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dixon

26 A.D.3d 891, 807 N.Y.S.2d 904

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.3d 891 (People v. Dixon) 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. Dixon, 26 A.D.3d 891, 807 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered August 20, 2004. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated certain conditions of his probation, and thus County Court did not err in revoking his probation (see People v Pettway, 286 AD2d 865 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 686 [2001]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Smith, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered August 20, 2004. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated certain conditions of his probation, and thus County Court did not err in revoking his probation (see People v Pettway, 286 AD2d 865 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 686 [2001]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 891, 807 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dixon-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack