From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

14761.

Decided and Entered: May 13, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered May 8, 2003, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Ferrara Sullivan, Monticello (John Ferrara of counsel), for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Geoffrey B. Rossi of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant was serving five years' probation for her 2001 conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree when she was charged with violating the terms of her probation by missing scheduled appointments with her probation officer, failing to comply with treatment recommendations and neglecting to make any effort to satisfy restitution. Defendant pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation. Although sentencing was suspended in order to give defendant another chance to succeed on probationary status, defendant's probation was ultimately revoked and she was sentenced to a prison term of 1 1/3 to 4 years.

Inasmuch as there was no request for an updated presentence investigation report, defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to order a second presentence investigation report is not preserved for our review (see People v. Olivett, 301 A.D.2d 968, 969; People v. Moon, 225 A.D.2d 826, 827-828, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 939). Were we to consider the issue, we would find, after a review of the record, that defendant and her probation officer apprised the court of all relevant factors regarding defendant's conduct in the intervening months since her initial sentence of probation (see People v. Wingenter, 261 A.D.2d 716, 717; People v. Travers, 234 A.D.2d 808). Furthermore, given defendant's inability to abide by the terms of probation, we reject defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive (see People v. Olivett, supra at 969) and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Dolphy, 257 A.D.2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 872).

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Fernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Fernandez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DELORES FERNANDEZ…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 13, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 913

Citing Cases

People v. Kaulback

In any event, defendant and counsel both made statements to County Court before sentencing, thus affording…

State v. Provost

Next, we discern neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of extraordinary…