From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Guzman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 22, 2015
127 A.D.3d 1108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

04-22-2015

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Luis W. GUZMAN, appellant.

Alan Polsky, Medford, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel), for respondent.


Alan Polsky, Medford, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered November 1, 2013, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Kahn, J.), upon a finding that he violated the conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of his due process rights to written notice of the alleged violations of his probation and to fair notice that the misconduct in which he allegedly engaged violated his conditions of probation (see People v. Crawford, 61 A.D.3d 774, 775, 877 N.Y.S.2d 170 ; People v. Simone, 13 A.D.3d 71, 71, 785 N.Y.S.2d 82 ; cf. Douglas v. Buder, 412 U.S. 430, 432, 93 S.Ct. 2199, 37 L.Ed.2d 52 ; People v. Almonte, 50 A.D.3d 696, 697, 855 N.Y.S.2d 209 ; People v. Avellanet, 272 A.D.2d 406, 407, 708 N.Y.S.2d 417 ). Moreover, upon finding that the defendant violated conditions of his probation, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in revoking probation and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment for the original conviction (see CPL 410.70[5] ; People v. Costanza, 36 A.D.3d 829, 830, 829 N.Y.S.2d 160 ). The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal from the original conviction, the validity of which he does not challenge on appeal, precludes review of his claim that the sentence of imprisonment imposed was excessive (see People v. Mack, 119 A.D.3d 875, 989 N.Y.S.2d 377 ; People v. Whitlock, 114 A.D.3d 970, 971, 980 N.Y.S.2d 831 ; People v. Pook, 73 A.D.3d 952, 952–953, 899 N.Y.S.2d 872 ; People v. Kimbrough, 25 A.D.3d 810, 811, 807 N.Y.S.2d 652 ; People v. Gorovoy, 309 A.D.2d 764, 765 N.Y.S.2d 275 ; People v. Strunkey, 268 A.D.2d 492, 492, 701 N.Y.S.2d 643 ; but see People v. Dexter, 71 A.D.3d 1504, 1504–1505, 897 N.Y.S.2d 355 ; People v. Venable, 16 A.D.3d 771, 790 N.Y.S.2d 755 ).

RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Guzman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Apr 22, 2015
127 A.D.3d 1108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Guzman

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Luis W. GUZMAN, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Apr 22, 2015

Citations

127 A.D.3d 1108 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
127 A.D.3d 1108
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3383

Citing Cases

People v. King

Upon finding that the defendant violated a condition of her probation, the County Court was authorized to…

People v. Doyle

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant’s waivers of his right to appeal, the validity of…