People v. Rowell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rowell

5 A.D.3d 1073, 773 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2887

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 1073 (People v. Rowell) 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. Rowell, 5 A.D.3d 1073, 773 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered March 12, 2002. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a term of imprisonment.

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

[1074]*1074Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment, entered upon his admission of a violation of probation, revoking the term of probation imposed upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 6 years. We reject the People’s contention that the appeal was rendered moot by defendant’s release to parole supervision. Because defendant “remains under the control of the Parole Board until his sentence has terminated, an appeal from the judgment in question is not moot” (People v Slavik, 42 AD2d 720, 720-721 [1973]; see People v Stewart, 185 AD2d 381, 382 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court had the benefit, prior to sentencing, of an updated presentence report (cf. People v Klinkowski, 281 AD2d 972, 972-973 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 831 [2001]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Ronald H. Tills, A.J.), rendered March 12, 2002. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a term of imprisonment.

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

[1074]*1074Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment, entered upon his admission of a violation of probation, revoking the term of probation imposed upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 6 years. We reject the People’s contention that the appeal was rendered moot by defendant’s release to parole supervision. Because defendant “remains under the control of the Parole Board until his sentence has terminated, an appeal from the judgment in question is not moot” (People v Slavik, 42 AD2d 720, 720-721 [1973]; see People v Stewart, 185 AD2d 381, 382 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 977 [1992]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, Supreme Court had the benefit, prior to sentencing, of an updated presentence report (cf. People v Klinkowski, 281 AD2d 972, 972-973 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 831 [2001]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 1073, 773 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rowell-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack