People v. Keller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Keller

139 A.D.3d 755, 31 N.Y.S.3d 885

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

DecidedMay 4, 2016

Docket2014-10891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 755 (People v. Keller) 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. Keller, 139 A.D.3d 755, 31 N.Y.S.3d 885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered November 3, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, under indictment No. 929-13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered November 3, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree under Superior Court information No. 2683-13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his release under the judicial diversion program was consistent with due process requirements and supported by reliable and accurate evidence, namely, the contents of the presentence report (see CPL 216.05 [9] [b]; see People v Travers, 95 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; cf. People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). The defendant’s contention that the court improperly relied on certain information in the presentence report is without merit (see People v Mathieu, 83 AD3d 735, 737 [2011]; People v Guevara, 68 AD3d 1738 [2009]; People v Mereness, 43 AD3d 473, 474 [2007]). We also note that section 24 of the judicial diversion program contract signed by the defendant on January 13, 2014, specifically provides that “[hjearsay evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing a violation of the contract.” The defendant’s further contention that he was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the contents of the presentence report is unsupported by the record.

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the excessiveness of the sentence he received pursuant to the plea agree *756 ment is without merit (see People v Wynn, 40 AD3d 893, 894 [2007]; People v Deale, 29 AD3d 602, 603 [2006]; People v Catts, 26 AD3d 341 [2006]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered November 3, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, under indictment No. 929-13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered November 3, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree under Superior Court information No. 2683-13, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his release under the judicial diversion program was consistent with due process requirements and supported by reliable and accurate evidence, namely, the contents of the presentence report (see CPL 216.05 [9] [b]; see People v Travers, 95 AD3d 1239, 1240 [2012]; cf. People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 97 [2010]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]). The defendant’s contention that the court improperly relied on certain information in the presentence report is without merit (see People v Mathieu, 83 AD3d 735, 737 [2011]; People v Guevara, 68 AD3d 1738 [2009]; People v Mereness, 43 AD3d 473, 474 [2007]). We also note that section 24 of the judicial diversion program contract signed by the defendant on January 13, 2014, specifically provides that “[hjearsay evidence is admissible for the purpose of establishing a violation of the contract.” The defendant’s further contention that he was not afforded an opportunity to rebut the contents of the presentence report is unsupported by the record.

The defendant’s remaining contention regarding the excessiveness of the sentence he received pursuant to the plea agree *756 ment is without merit (see People v Wynn, 40 AD3d 893, 894 [2007]; People v Deale, 29 AD3d 602, 603 [2006]; People v Catts, 26 AD3d 341 [2006]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 755, 31 N.Y.S.3d 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-keller-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack