People v. Willi

77 A.D.2d 711, 430 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12452
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 17, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 711 (People v. Willi) 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. Willi, 77 A.D.2d 711, 430 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered July 25, 1978, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed sentence of imprisonment with a maximum period not to exceed three years. The sentence herein was imposed upon the defendant [712]*712upon his plea of guilty of violating the conditions of his five-year probationary term, which had been imposed upon his conviction in 1977 of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony. One of the conditions of his probation, of which the defendant was duly notified, was "not to operate a motor vehicle or motorcycle during the period of probation”. On May 6, 1978, the defendant was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, when the vehicle he was driving was involved in an accident which caused personal injuries. The plea of guilty of the violation of probation was knowing and voluntary and without any promises having been made, and it was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment which charged him with driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, as a class E felony based on the prior conviction. Revocation of the defendant’s probation was proper when he concededly violated a condition of his probation (People v Meyer, 59 AD2d 798), and the commission of a crane is sufficient ground for revocation of probation (People v Crandall, 51 AD2d 841). The sentence imposed in these circumstances was not unduly harsh or excessive (People v King, 55 AD2d 972; People v Thiel, 51 AD2d 1093) and should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Howland
108 A.D.2d 1019 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Heppelle
97 A.D.2d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Barker
97 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.2d 711, 430 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-willi-nyappdiv-1980.