People v. Hamdy

46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 882
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1383 (People v. Hamdy) 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. Hamdy, 46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered January 27, 2006. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

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

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [i]), and he now appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon that conviction and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the validity of his admission that he violated conditions of his probation inasmuch as he failed to move to withdraw his admission or to vacate the judgment revoking his sentence of probation (see People v Barra, 45 AD3d 1393 [2007]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit because the record establishes that defendant was “afforded the requisite opportunity to be heard concerning the charged violation^] of probation, i.e., ‘an opportunity to attack or deny the charge[s]’ ” (People v Matos, 28 AD3d 1120, 1122 [2006], quoting People v Oskroba, 305 NY 113, 117 [1953], rearg denied 305 NY 696 [1953]). Further, the record establishes that defendant also admitted to a subsequent arrest, which is by itself a sufficient basis for finding a violation of probation (see id.). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Richardson
78 A.D.3d 1666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamdy-nyappdiv-2007.