People v. Kierstdet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kierstdet

203 A.D.2d 482, 610 N.Y.S.2d 868

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 482 (People v. Kierstdet) 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. Kierstdet, 203 A.D.2d 482, 610 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered January 22, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

[483]*483Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The court’s determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Rennie, 190 AD2d 830; People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered January 22, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

[483]*483Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The court’s determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, CPL 410.70 [3]; People v Rennie, 190 AD2d 830; People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, O’Brien, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 482, 610 N.Y.S.2d 868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kierstdet-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack