People v. Jordan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jordan

36 A.D.3d 948, 826 N.Y.S.2d 510

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 948 (People v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 36 A.D.3d 948, 826 N.Y.S.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered March 27, 2006, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. He thereafter admitted to violating certain terms of his probation, had the probation revoked and was resentenced to one year in jail. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant initially contends that, given his history of drug addiction and mental illness, his sentence is harsh and excessive. Upon review of the record, however, it is clear that County Court gave due consideration to defendant’s history, the circumstances in connection with the underlying offense and defendant’s continuous inability to comply with his probation conditions despite having been given several opportunities to do so. Accordingly, we discern neither an abuse of discretion on the part of County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Bertsch, 31 AD3d 961, 962 [2006]; People v Garner, 28 AD3d 875, 875 [2006]).

Turning to the issue of restitution, the People “concede to the defendant’s argument regarding the amount of the surcharge that should have been assessed” and “do not dispute the defendant’s statements” regarding the amount of restitution actually paid. However, the record is unclear as to those precise amounts. Thus, the matter must be remitted to County Court for the appropriate inquiry and determination as to the specific outstanding balance.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by reversing so much thereof as ordered restitution; matter remitted to [949]*949the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered March 27, 2006, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.

Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and sentenced to three years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. He thereafter admitted to violating certain terms of his probation, had the probation revoked and was resentenced to one year in jail. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant initially contends that, given his history of drug addiction and mental illness, his sentence is harsh and excessive. Upon review of the record, however, it is clear that County Court gave due consideration to defendant’s history, the circumstances in connection with the underlying offense and defendant’s continuous inability to comply with his probation conditions despite having been given several opportunities to do so. Accordingly, we discern neither an abuse of discretion on the part of County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Bertsch, 31 AD3d 961, 962 [2006]; People v Garner, 28 AD3d 875, 875 [2006]).

Turning to the issue of restitution, the People “concede to the defendant’s argument regarding the amount of the surcharge that should have been assessed” and “do not dispute the defendant’s statements” regarding the amount of restitution actually paid. However, the record is unclear as to those precise amounts. Thus, the matter must be remitted to County Court for the appropriate inquiry and determination as to the specific outstanding balance.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by reversing so much thereof as ordered restitution; matter remitted to [949]*949the County Court of St. Lawrence County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 948, 826 N.Y.S.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jordan-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack