People v. Holmes

226 A.D.2d 1122, 642 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly revoked the sentence of probation based upon defendant’s admitted failure to make timely monthly restitution payments (see, People v Ray, 105 AD2d 988). The sentence of two to six years’ imprisonment is not unduly harsh or severe.

In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant challenges the propriety of the original sentence of probation and the amount of restitution fixed by the court as a condition of that sentence. Those arguments are not properly before us on appeal from the judgment revoking the sentence of probation and resentencing defendant (see, CPL 450.30 [3]; People v Dabbs, 178 AD2d 848, lv denied 79 NY2d 946). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Violation of Probation.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Holmes, 226 A.D.2d 1122, 642 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5632 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

226 A.D.2d 1122 (People v. Holmes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Postula
50 A.D.3d 1581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Anthony
13 A.D.3d 1114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Ralston
303 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Coy
279 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Frankel
240 A.D.2d 431 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Ambriati
239 A.D.2d 948 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)