From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 9, 1992
185 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

July 9, 1992

Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.).


On April 21, 1989, defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a felony and sentenced to a 90-day jail term and five years' probation. In February 1990, County Court declared defendant delinquent as the result of allegations that he violated the terms of his probation by consuming alcoholic beverages and by failing to report to his probation officer or to perform mandated community service. On May 23, 1990, defendant admitted that he violated the terms of his probation. On June 6, 1990, County Court revoked defendant's sentence of probation and resentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals.

We are not persuaded by the contentions that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the sentence imposed by County Court was harsh and excessive. However, in view of the passage of approximately 15 months from the time of preparation of the presentence report, we agree with defendant that County Court erred in failing to obtain an updated report prior to imposing sentence (see, People v. Simpson, 179 A.D.2d 831; People v. Bellis, 115 A.D.2d 237). Contrary to the assertion of the People, this is not a case where County Court had before it the "`"functional equivalent"'" of a presentence report (see, People v. Gilyard, 161 A.D.2d 464; People v. Goon, 124 A.D.2d 347, 348, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 711) or where defendant waived the requirement of an up-to-date report (see, People v. Brand, 138 A.D.2d 966, 967, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 966). Nor does the record support the claim that County Court was "fully familiar with any changes in defendant's status, conduct or condition which may have occurred * * * since the previous sentence of probation was imposed" (People v Tyrrell, 101 A.D.2d 946, 947). Finally, in view of the People's acknowledgment that defendant is on parole, it is clear that the sentence has not expired and the appeal is, accordingly, not moot (see, People v. Slavik, 42 A.D.2d 720; cf., People v. Hill, 161 A.D.2d 520, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 940).

Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the amended sentence; matter remitted to the County Court of Ulster County for resentencing in accordance with this court's decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Stewart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 9, 1992
185 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DENNIS STEWART…

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

Date published: Jul 9, 1992

Citations

185 A.D.2d 381 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Winters

"A sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless it can be shown…

People v. Winters

Lastly, defendant contends that his sentence is harsh and excessive since he is a first-time felony offender…