People v. Michael J.F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Michael J.F.

15 A.D.3d 952, 788 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 981

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 952 (People v. Michael J.F.) 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. Michael J.F., 15 A.D.3d 952, 788 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[953]*953Appeal from an adjudication of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered July 28, 2003. The adjudication revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced defendant to a term of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that the adjudication so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from an adjudication revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of incarceration, defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support County Court’s finding that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We reject that contention. The People properly presented the requisite “residuum of competent legal evidence” and thus met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation (People v Pettway, 286 AD2d 865, 865 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 686 [2001]; see People v Oyebanji, 246 AD2d 560 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 944 [1998]). “Although hearsay evidence is admissible in probation violation proceedings . . ., the People must present facts of a probative character, outside of the hearsay statements, to prove the violation” (Pettway, 286 AD2d at 865; see People v Ramos, 232 AD2d 433 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 909 [1997]). Here, contrary to the contention of defendant, the testimony of his senior counselor at Horizon Health Services provided the requisite nonhearsay evidence establishing that he failed to comply with “all rules and requirements” of his sex offender treatment program in accordance with the terms and conditions of his probation (see generally Pettway, 286 AD2d 865 [2001]; Ramos, 232 AD2d at 433-434). We also reject the contention of defendant that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present — Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

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

[953]*953Appeal from an adjudication of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered July 28, 2003. The adjudication revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced defendant to a term of incarceration.

It is hereby ordered that the adjudication so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from an adjudication revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of incarceration, defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support County Court’s finding that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We reject that contention. The People properly presented the requisite “residuum of competent legal evidence” and thus met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation (People v Pettway, 286 AD2d 865, 865 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 686 [2001]; see People v Oyebanji, 246 AD2d 560 [1998], lv denied 91 NY2d 944 [1998]). “Although hearsay evidence is admissible in probation violation proceedings . . ., the People must present facts of a probative character, outside of the hearsay statements, to prove the violation” (Pettway, 286 AD2d at 865; see People v Ramos, 232 AD2d 433 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 909 [1997]). Here, contrary to the contention of defendant, the testimony of his senior counselor at Horizon Health Services provided the requisite nonhearsay evidence establishing that he failed to comply with “all rules and requirements” of his sex offender treatment program in accordance with the terms and conditions of his probation (see generally Pettway, 286 AD2d 865 [2001]; Ramos, 232 AD2d at 433-434). We also reject the contention of defendant that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present — Pigott, Jr., PJ., Pine, Scudder, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 952, 788 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-michael-jf-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack