People v. Swick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Swick

147 A.D.3d 1346, 47 N.Y.S.3d 539

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.3d 1346 (People v. Swick) 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. Swick, 147 A.D.3d 1346, 47 N.Y.S.3d 539 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered July 26, 2011. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction, following his plea of guilty, of attempted use of a child in a sexual performance (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 263.05), and imposing a sentence of imprisonment. “Inasmuch as defendant has completed serving the sentence imposed, his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot” (People v Anderson, 66 AD3d 1431, 1431 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 905 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Benson, 6 AD3d 1173, 1173 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 636 [2004]).

Defendant further contends that County Court violated his due process rights by revoking his probationary sentence based on a de minimis violation of the terms and conditions of probation. At no time during the probation revocation proceedings did defendant raise any challenge to the allegedly “de minimis” nature of the violation or raise any due process challenge to the proceeding. We thus conclude that defendant’s contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Ebert, 18 AD3d 963, 964 [2005]; People v Villar, 10 AD3d 564, 564 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 761 [2004]; see generally CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s admitted “violation of probation was [neither] de minimis nor a mere technicality” (People v Cummings, 134 AD3d 1566, 1566 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 995 [2016]; see People v Burton, 234 AD2d 972, 973 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1033 [1997]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered July 26, 2011. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction, following his plea of guilty, of attempted use of a child in a sexual performance (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 263.05), and imposing a sentence of imprisonment. “Inasmuch as defendant has completed serving the sentence imposed, his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot” (People v Anderson, 66 AD3d 1431, 1431 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 905 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Benson, 6 AD3d 1173, 1173 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 636 [2004]).

Defendant further contends that County Court violated his due process rights by revoking his probationary sentence based on a de minimis violation of the terms and conditions of probation. At no time during the probation revocation proceedings did defendant raise any challenge to the allegedly “de minimis” nature of the violation or raise any due process challenge to the proceeding. We thus conclude that defendant’s contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Ebert, 18 AD3d 963, 964 [2005]; People v Villar, 10 AD3d 564, 564 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 761 [2004]; see generally CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s admitted “violation of probation was [neither] de minimis nor a mere technicality” (People v Cummings, 134 AD3d 1566, 1566 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 995 [2016]; see People v Burton, 234 AD2d 972, 973 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1033 [1997]).

Present — Centra, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.3d 1346, 47 N.Y.S.3d 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-swick-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack