People v. Herman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herman

40 A.D.3d 477, 836 N.Y.S.2d 183

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

DecidedMay 24, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 477 (People v. Herman) 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. Herman, 40 A.D.3d 477, 836 N.Y.S.2d 183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered December 21, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and violation of probation, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years on the fifth-degree sale conviction, consecutive to a term of 2 to 6 years on the violation of probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the revocation of his probation after the original term of probation had expired is unpreserved (see People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807 [1999]; People v Kyem, 272 AD2d 136 [2000], Iv denied 95 NY2d 836 [2000]), and we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find that the court did not lack jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation, which was based on his repeated failure to report to his probation officer. The filing of the declaration of delinquency tolled the period of probation (Penal Law § 65.15 [2]), and the delay in the court’s final determination on the matter was generally requested by the defense or occasioned by a change in defendant’s counsel, rather than being attributable to the prosecution or the court (see People v [478]*478Cook, 295 AD2d 622 [2002]; compare People v Jacks, 235 AD2d 247 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1036 [1997]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence imposed on the violation of probation. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered December 21, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and violation of probation, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years on the fifth-degree sale conviction, consecutive to a term of 2 to 6 years on the violation of probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the revocation of his probation after the original term of probation had expired is unpreserved (see People v Douglas, 94 NY2d 807 [1999]; People v Kyem, 272 AD2d 136 [2000], Iv denied 95 NY2d 836 [2000]), and we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review the claim, we would find that the court did not lack jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation, which was based on his repeated failure to report to his probation officer. The filing of the declaration of delinquency tolled the period of probation (Penal Law § 65.15 [2]), and the delay in the court’s final determination on the matter was generally requested by the defense or occasioned by a change in defendant’s counsel, rather than being attributable to the prosecution or the court (see People v [478]*478Cook, 295 AD2d 622 [2002]; compare People v Jacks, 235 AD2d 247 [1997], lv denied 89 NY2d 1036 [1997]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence imposed on the violation of probation. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Marlow, Gonzalez, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 477, 836 N.Y.S.2d 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-herman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack