From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gantt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2008
48 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2007-01817.

February 26, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered February 15, 2007, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (David R. Huey of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ.


Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court failed to comply with the procedure mandated by CPL 410.70 (1) before resentencing him on a violation of probation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Brandon, 35 AD3d 876; People v Maglione, 18 AD3d 670; People v Henry, 180 AD2d 749). In any event, the County Court properly revoked probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment upon a finding that the defendant had violated certain terms and conditions of probation.

The resentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. Gantt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 26, 2008
48 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Gantt

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMAAL GANTT, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 26, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 1776
851 N.Y.S.2d 368

Citing Cases

People v. Crawford

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed. The Supreme Court revoked the defendant's probation on the…