People v. Zaldokas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zaldokas

238 A.D.2d 637, 656 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3174

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

DecidedApril 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 637 (People v. Zaldokas) 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. Zaldokas, 238 A.D.2d 637, 656 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.), rendered May 3, 1996, which revoked defendant’s proba-, tion and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree and originally was sentenced to five years’ probation. Upon finding that defendant violated the terms of his probation, defendant was resentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant contends that the sentence imposed by County Court is unduly harsh and should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. Defendant admitted to using drugs while on probation and failing to complete community service, both of which were conditions of his probation. In view of this, as well as the fact that County Court gave defendant repeated opportunities to comply with the terms of his probation, we conclude that the sentence imposed was altogether appropriate (see, People v Wooden, 217 AD2d 728) and perceive no reason to disturb it.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Sherman, J.), rendered May 3, 1996, which revoked defendant’s proba-, tion and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree and originally was sentenced to five years’ probation. Upon finding that defendant violated the terms of his probation, defendant was resentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant contends that the sentence imposed by County Court is unduly harsh and should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. Defendant admitted to using drugs while on probation and failing to complete community service, both of which were conditions of his probation. In view of this, as well as the fact that County Court gave defendant repeated opportunities to comply with the terms of his probation, we conclude that the sentence imposed was altogether appropriate (see, People v Wooden, 217 AD2d 728) and perceive no reason to disturb it.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 637, 656 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zaldokas-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack