People v. Egloff

107 A.D.3d 1242, 966 N.Y.S.2d 919
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 107 A.D.3d 1242 (People v. Egloff) 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. Egloff, 107 A.D.3d 1242, 966 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J), rendered October 20, 2011, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Following defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI), as a felony, he was sentenced to, among other things, 30 days in jail to be served intermittently on weekends and five years of probation. The conditions of probation were made known to him. Thereafter, a petition was filed against defendant alleging violations of the conditions of probation. Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to violating multiple terms of his probation. Defendant’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to 2 to 6 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. The record confirms, however, that, despite being given repeated opportunities to succeed on probation, he was unable to abide by the conditions imposed, including that he refrain from, among other things, consuming alcohol. County Court carefully considered all mitigating factors, including defendant’s relapsed alcoholism, his extensive criminal history including three prior DWI convictions and the fact that he was on probation for a prior DWI at the time he committed the underlying DWI in issue. Under these circumstances, “we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice” (People v Campbell, 79 AD3d 1458, 1459 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 829 [2011]; see People v Holland, 95 AD3d 1504, 1505 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 974 [2012]; People v Kirk, 87 AD3d 1205, 1205 [2011]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain 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

Related

PeoplevRoach
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Roach
120 A.D.3d 1506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Beach
115 A.D.3d 1117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Miller
113 A.D.3d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 A.D.3d 1242, 966 N.Y.S.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-egloff-nyappdiv-2013.