People v. Ebert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ebert

81 A.D.3d 1042, 916 N.Y.S.2d 303

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 81 A.D.3d 1042 (People v. Ebert) 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. Ebert, 81 A.D.3d 1042, 916 N.Y.S.2d 303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered May 4, 2010, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to five days in jail and five years of probation. She subsequently admitted to violating her probation with the understanding that her probation would be terminated and she would be resentenced to 10 months in jail. Thereafter, defendant’s probation was revoked and she was resentenced to 10 months in jail. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to adjourn the resentencing because she was intoxicated at the time and unable to meaningfully comprehend the proceeding. Defendant has failed to preserve this claim as she did not object at the resentencing proceeding or move to vacate the resentence (see e.g. People v Shaw, 78 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2010]; People v Colon, 202 AD2d 710, 711 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 870 [1994]). To the contrary, .her counsel objected to the prosecutor’s request that resentencing be adjourned and maintained that defendant was nervous, not intoxicated. In any event, any such claim is without merit given that defendant proceeded to give a statement urging the court to impose a lesser sentence without any indication that she was intoxicated. Likewise, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that the resentence was harsh and excessive. In view of defendant’s prior conviction for the same offense and repeated failure to maintain sobriety while attending her treatment programs, we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice (see People v Tyler, 76 AD3d 1144 [2010]; People v Garner, 28 AD3d 875, 875 [2006]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 Saratoga County (Scarano, J.), rendered May 4, 2010, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to five days in jail and five years of probation. She subsequently admitted to violating her probation with the understanding that her probation would be terminated and she would be resentenced to 10 months in jail. Thereafter, defendant’s probation was revoked and she was resentenced to 10 months in jail. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to adjourn the resentencing because she was intoxicated at the time and unable to meaningfully comprehend the proceeding. Defendant has failed to preserve this claim as she did not object at the resentencing proceeding or move to vacate the resentence (see e.g. People v Shaw, 78 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2010]; People v Colon, 202 AD2d 710, 711 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 870 [1994]). To the contrary, .her counsel objected to the prosecutor’s request that resentencing be adjourned and maintained that defendant was nervous, not intoxicated. In any event, any such claim is without merit given that defendant proceeded to give a statement urging the court to impose a lesser sentence without any indication that she was intoxicated. Likewise, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that the resentence was harsh and excessive. In view of defendant’s prior conviction for the same offense and repeated failure to maintain sobriety while attending her treatment programs, we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice (see People v Tyler, 76 AD3d 1144 [2010]; People v Garner, 28 AD3d 875, 875 [2006]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.3d 1042, 916 N.Y.S.2d 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ebert-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack