People v. Guzman

127 A.D.3d 1108, 5 N.Y.S.3d 880
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 22, 2015
Docket2013-10833
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 1108 (People v. Guzman) 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. Guzman, 127 A.D.3d 1108, 5 N.Y.S.3d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered November 1, 2013, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Kahn, J.), upon a finding that he violated the conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of his due process rights to written notice of the alleged violations of his probation and to fair notice that the misconduct in which he allegedly engaged violated his conditions of probation (see People v Crawford, 61 AD3d 774, 775 [2009]; People v Simone, 13 AD3d 71, 71 [2004]; cf. Douglas v Buder, 412 US 430, 432 [1973]; People v Almonte, 50 AD3d 696, 697 [2008]; People v Avellanet, 272 AD2d 406, 407 [2000]). Moreover, upon finding that the defendant violated conditions of his probation, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in revoking probation and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment for the original conviction (see CPL 410.70 [5]; People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]). The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal from the original conviction, the validity of which he does not challenge on appeal, precludes review of his claim that the sentence of imprisonment imposed was excessive (see People v Mack, 119 AD3d 875 [2014]; People v Whitlock, 114 AD3d 970, 971 [2014]; People v Pook, 73 AD3d 952, 952-953 [2010]; People v Kimbrough, 25 AD3d 810, 811 [2006]; People v Gorovoy, 309 AD2d 764 [2003]; People v Strunkey, 268 AD2d 492, 492 [2000]; but see People v Dexter, 71 AD3d 1504, 1504-1505 [2010]; People v Venable, 16 AD3d 771 [2005]).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Bennerman
2025 NY Slip Op 01382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
People v. Doyle
2024 NY Slip Op 00779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People v. King
2019 NY Slip Op 2117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Barnes
2018 NY Slip Op 2175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.3d 1108, 5 N.Y.S.3d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guzman-nyappdiv-2015.