People v. Morillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morillo

159 A.D.2d 310

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 310 (People v. Morillo) 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. Morillo, 159 A.D.2d 310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 2, 1987, which revoked defendant’s sentence of five years’ probation, previously imposed upon a February 18, 1987 judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and resentenced him to a term of imprisonment of from 3 Vs to 10 years, is unanimously affirmed.

There is no basis upon which to disturb the hearing court’s crediting of the probation officer’s testimony that defendant attempted to bribe her, threatened her, and was consistently late and did not appear for appointments. That testimony, along with the evidence of defendant’s multiple arrests, established that defendant violated the terms of his sentence of probation and constituted the necessary preponderance of evidence needed to sustain the court’s finding pursuant to CPL 410.70 (3). Concur—Carro, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 2, 1987, which revoked defendant’s sentence of five years’ probation, previously imposed upon a February 18, 1987 judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and resentenced him to a term of imprisonment of from 3 Vs to 10 years, is unanimously affirmed.

There is no basis upon which to disturb the hearing court’s crediting of the probation officer’s testimony that defendant attempted to bribe her, threatened her, and was consistently late and did not appear for appointments. That testimony, along with the evidence of defendant’s multiple arrests, established that defendant violated the terms of his sentence of probation and constituted the necessary preponderance of evidence needed to sustain the court’s finding pursuant to CPL 410.70 (3). Concur—Carro, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morillo-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack