People v. Dunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunn

306 A.D.2d 945, 761 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6898

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

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 945 (People v. Dunn) 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. Dunn, 306 A.D.2d 945, 761 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court (Walsh, J.), entered June 4, 2002, which revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced defendant to a determinate term of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment to three years and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record supports County Court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his probation (see CPL 410.70 [1]). Although we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his probation on that ground (see People v Costanza, 281 AD2d 120, 125 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 827 [2001]), we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment to three years (see 470.15 [6] [b]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Onondaga County Court (Walsh, J.), entered June 4, 2002, which revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced defendant to a determinate term of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment to three years and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record supports County Court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his probation (see CPL 410.70 [1]). Although we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his probation on that ground (see People v Costanza, 281 AD2d 120, 125 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 827 [2001]), we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment to three years (see 470.15 [6] [b]). Present — Wisner, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 945, 761 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunn-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack