From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 1998
246 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

January 8, 1998

Appeal from the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.).


In 1991, defendant was sentenced to five years' probation upon her plea of guilty of the crime of forgery in the second degree. She was subsequently charged with and, following a hearing, found guilty of violating the terms of her probation. As a result, County Court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced her to a prison term of 2 to 6 years. Our review of the record discloses that County Court providently exercised its discretion in revoking defendant's probation. The record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant left Franklin County without the permission of the Franklin County Probation Department on two separate occasions and, on one such occasion, committed the crime of petit larceny, conduct which directly violated the terms of her probation ( see, CPL 410.70). Given defendant's lengthy criminal history and her apparent unwillingness to comply with the terms of her probation, the sentence imposed is neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Langlois, 243 A.D.2d 775).

Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Marshall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 1998
246 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAMELA L. MARSHALL…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 698 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
666 N.Y.S.2d 522

Citing Cases

People v. Ryan P

We reject defendant's contentions that County Court erred by failing to obtain an updated presentence report…

People v. Lowe

However, the record does not reflect that defendant waived her right to appeal either orally or in writing.…