People v. Swenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swenson

12 A.D.3d 948, 785 N.Y.S.2d 175, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14286

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 948 (People v. Swenson) 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. Swenson, 12 A.D.3d 948, 785 N.Y.S.2d 175, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered July 14, 2003, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree after she attempted to smuggle heroin to a prison inmate during a visit at a correctional facility. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in jail and five years’ probation. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention on appeal that the condition of probation precluding any contact with the inmate to whom she tried to smuggle the drugs violates her constitutional right of freedom of association. A court has broad discretionary powers to set the conditions of probation which it “deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him [or her] to do so” (Penal Law § 65.10 [1]) and which are “necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense” (Penal Law § 65.10 [5]). Defendant’s relationship with the inmate in question marked the onset of her criminal activity and the record establishes that defendant planned to continue the relationship despite the inmate’s manipulation and negative influence. Under these circumstances, it is our view that the no-contact condition of defendant’s probation was reasonably related to her rehabilitation (see People v Page, 266 AD2d 733, 735 [1999]; People v Griffith, 239 AD2d 705 [1997]; People v Howland, 145 AD2d 866 [1988]).

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered July 14, 2003, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree after she attempted to smuggle heroin to a prison inmate during a visit at a correctional facility. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in jail and five years’ probation. We are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention on appeal that the condition of probation precluding any contact with the inmate to whom she tried to smuggle the drugs violates her constitutional right of freedom of association. A court has broad discretionary powers to set the conditions of probation which it “deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him [or her] to do so” (Penal Law § 65.10 [1]) and which are “necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense” (Penal Law § 65.10 [5]). Defendant’s relationship with the inmate in question marked the onset of her criminal activity and the record establishes that defendant planned to continue the relationship despite the inmate’s manipulation and negative influence. Under these circumstances, it is our view that the no-contact condition of defendant’s probation was reasonably related to her rehabilitation (see People v Page, 266 AD2d 733, 735 [1999]; People v Griffith, 239 AD2d 705 [1997]; People v Howland, 145 AD2d 866 [1988]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 948, 785 N.Y.S.2d 175, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swenson-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack