People v. Pidcoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pidcoe

294 A.D.2d 715, 741 N.Y.S.2d 748, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5061

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

DecidedMay 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 715 (People v. Pidcoe) 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. Pidcoe, 294 A.D.2d 715, 741 N.Y.S.2d 748, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), entered March 28, 2001, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Upon her plea of guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated, defendant was sentenced to five years’ probation. In March 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation by repeatedly failing to report for probation meetings and by having consumed alcohol. She was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals, challenging her sentence as unduly harsh and excessive.

In light of defendant’s demonstrated inability to abide by the conditions of probation, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed, which is within the permissible statutory range, was harsh and excessive (see, People v Barkley, 289 AD2d 880; People v Medinilla, 279 AD2d 891, lv denied 96 NY2d 803), nor does the record reveal any extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, lv denied 93 NY2d 872).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), entered March 28, 2001, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Upon her plea of guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated, defendant was sentenced to five years’ probation. In March 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation by repeatedly failing to report for probation meetings and by having consumed alcohol. She was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals, challenging her sentence as unduly harsh and excessive.

In light of defendant’s demonstrated inability to abide by the conditions of probation, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed, which is within the permissible statutory range, was harsh and excessive (see, People v Barkley, 289 AD2d 880; People v Medinilla, 279 AD2d 891, lv denied 96 NY2d 803), nor does the record reveal any extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, lv denied 93 NY2d 872).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 715, 741 N.Y.S.2d 748, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pidcoe-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack