People v. Travers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Travers

95 A.D.3d 1239, 945 N.Y.S.2d 169

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

DecidedMay 23, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1239 (People v. Travers) 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. Travers, 95 A.D.3d 1239, 945 N.Y.S.2d 169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County [1240]*1240Court, Suffolk County (Iliou, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentencing court, during its inquiry into allegations that he violated the conditions of his plea and of his release under the judicial diversion program (see CPL art 216), deprived him of his right to due process when it relied upon unsworn testimony.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]).

Sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding and must satisfy the requirements of due process (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 96 [2010]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). In order to comply with due process, the sentencing court must assure itself that the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d at 712). “In determining whether a defendant violated a condition of his or her release under the judicial diversion program, the court may conduct a summary hearing consistent with due process and sufficient to satisfy the court that the defendant has, in fact, violated the condition” (CPL 216.05 [9] [b]; see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d at 96). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentencing court properly relied upon, inter alia, unsworn testimony in determining that he violated the conditions of his plea and of his release under the judicial diversion program (cf. People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d at 96).

The defendant’s reliance upon CPL 410.70 (1) and People v Almonte (50 AD3d 696 [2008]) is misplaced, as the County Court did not revoke a sentence of probation. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County [1240]*1240Court, Suffolk County (Iliou, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentencing court, during its inquiry into allegations that he violated the conditions of his plea and of his release under the judicial diversion program (see CPL art 216), deprived him of his right to due process when it relied upon unsworn testimony.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]).

Sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding and must satisfy the requirements of due process (see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d 90, 96 [2010]; People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). In order to comply with due process, the sentencing court must assure itself that the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d at 712). “In determining whether a defendant violated a condition of his or her release under the judicial diversion program, the court may conduct a summary hearing consistent with due process and sufficient to satisfy the court that the defendant has, in fact, violated the condition” (CPL 216.05 [9] [b]; see People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d at 96). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentencing court properly relied upon, inter alia, unsworn testimony in determining that he violated the conditions of his plea and of his release under the judicial diversion program (cf. People v Fiammegta, 14 NY3d at 96).

The defendant’s reliance upon CPL 410.70 (1) and People v Almonte (50 AD3d 696 [2008]) is misplaced, as the County Court did not revoke a sentence of probation. Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1239, 945 N.Y.S.2d 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-travers-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack