People v. Wahl

302 A.D.2d 976, 755 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1023
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 7, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 976 (People v. Wahl) 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. Wahl, 302 A.D.2d 976, 755 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Genesee County Court (Noonan, J.), entered October 26, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.20) and was sentenced to a six-month jail term and a five-year term of probation. Based upon the presentence investigation report, County Court imposed certain conditions of probation related to defendant’s prior conviction of a sex offense, i.e., that defendant participate in a sex offender treatment program, participate in sex offender counseling and refrain from various activities involving children under the age of 18. Contrary to the contention of defendant, those conditions of probation were properly imposed and do not violate his due process rights. The conditions are reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation (see § 65.10 [2] [Z]; see also People v Schunk, 269 AD2d 857, citing People v Hale, 93 NY2d 454, 462). Moreover, the conditions are “reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life” (§ 65.10 [1]) and are necessary to prevent his future incarceration (see § 65.10 [5]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the conditions of probation do not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Romanelli
2020 NY Slip Op 06414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Castaneda
2019 NY Slip Op 4860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
WHEELER, MATTHEW, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Wheeler
99 A.D.3d 1168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Hannah
65 A.D.3d 1378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 A.D.2d 976, 755 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wahl-nyappdiv-2003.