People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smith

47 A.D.3d 414, 848 N.Y.S.2d 648

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 414 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 47 A.D.3d 414, 848 N.Y.S.2d 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 29, 2005, convicting defendant, after a hearing, of violation of probation, and resentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion (see CPL 410.70 [2]; People v Ebert, 18 AD3d 963, 964 [2005]) in denying defendant’s request for a further adjournment of her already adjourned probation violation hearing for the purpose of trying to ascertain the existence and whereabouts of a claimed videotape of the shoplifting incident at issue. There was no reason to believe that an adjournment for that purpose would have been fruitful, especially since the store security manager testified at the hearing that there was no such tape. Furthermore, there was ample evidence, including defendant’s admissions, to support the violation of probation charge.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 29, 2005, convicting defendant, after a hearing, of violation of probation, and resentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion (see CPL 410.70 [2]; People v Ebert, 18 AD3d 963, 964 [2005]) in denying defendant’s request for a further adjournment of her already adjourned probation violation hearing for the purpose of trying to ascertain the existence and whereabouts of a claimed videotape of the shoplifting incident at issue. There was no reason to believe that an adjournment for that purpose would have been fruitful, especially since the store security manager testified at the hearing that there was no such tape. Furthermore, there was ample evidence, including defendant’s admissions, to support the violation of probation charge.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 414, 848 N.Y.S.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack