People v. Springer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Springer

255 A.D.2d 531, 680 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 531 (People v. Springer) 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. Springer, 255 A.D.2d 531, 680 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered September 29, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Buchter, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of [532]*532imprisonment, upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that the court’s finding that he violated a condition of his probation by selling and possessing crack cocaine, was not supported by a “ ‘residuum of competent legal evidence’ ” (People v Ramos, 232 AD2d 433, 434). It is undisputed, however, that the remaining violation of probation charge was properly sustained and, under the circumstances of this case, the amended sentence imposed was not excessive. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered September 29, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Buchter, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of [532]*532imprisonment, upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that the court’s finding that he violated a condition of his probation by selling and possessing crack cocaine, was not supported by a “ ‘residuum of competent legal evidence’ ” (People v Ramos, 232 AD2d 433, 434). It is undisputed, however, that the remaining violation of probation charge was properly sustained and, under the circumstances of this case, the amended sentence imposed was not excessive. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 531, 680 N.Y.S.2d 171, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-springer-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack