People v. O'Brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Brien

122 A.D.3d 957, 994 N.Y.S.2d 549

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

DecidedNovember 6, 2014

Docket105738

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 A.D.3d 957 (People v. O'Brien) 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. O'Brien, 122 A.D.3d 957, 994 N.Y.S.2d 549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*958 Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered March 5, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, with County Court making no sentencing commitment. He was accepted into the drug treatment court program in August 2012 and, as such, was placed on interim probation supervision. Defendant was sanctioned for failing to comply with the provisions of the treatment contract, and further violated the terms of his interim probation on two occasions. The second of those probation violations, in January 2013, arose when he absconded from the halfway house where he was residing and failed to report to his probation officer. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, a second felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of five years, to be followed by postrelease supervision of two years.

Defendant now appeals, arguing that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. Considering defendant’s prior criminal history and poor conduct while on interim probation, as well as the fact that he could have received a much more substantial prison term, “we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice” (People v Miller, 113 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; see People v Aljerari, 109 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1038 [2013]).

Peters, PJ., Stein, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

*958 Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered March 5, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, with County Court making no sentencing commitment. He was accepted into the drug treatment court program in August 2012 and, as such, was placed on interim probation supervision. Defendant was sanctioned for failing to comply with the provisions of the treatment contract, and further violated the terms of his interim probation on two occasions. The second of those probation violations, in January 2013, arose when he absconded from the halfway house where he was residing and failed to report to his probation officer. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, a second felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of five years, to be followed by postrelease supervision of two years.

Defendant now appeals, arguing that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. Considering defendant’s prior criminal history and poor conduct while on interim probation, as well as the fact that he could have received a much more substantial prison term, “we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice” (People v Miller, 113 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; see People v Aljerari, 109 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1038 [2013]).

Peters, PJ., Stein, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 A.D.3d 957, 994 N.Y.S.2d 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-obrien-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack