People v. Yutesler
This text of 177 A.D.2d 732 (People v. Yutesler) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered December 20, 1989, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the third degree.
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
It is well established that a finding of a violation of probation must be based "upon a preponderance of the evidence * * * which requires a residuum of competent legal evidence in the record” (People v Machia, 96 AD2d 1113, 1114; see also, People v Minard, 161 AD2d 607; CPL 410.70 [3]). We conclude that the hearing court’s determination that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence clearly presented in the record. Kunzeman, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
177 A.D.2d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yutesler-nyappdiv-1991.