Opinion
2012-04-20
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered September 8, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant's sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for defendant–appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Heather A. Parker of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered September 8, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant's sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.John E. Tyo, Shortsville, for defendant–appellant. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Heather A. Parker of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[6] ) and criminal mischief in the third degree (§ 145.05 [2] ) and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment. Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly determined that the People met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation ( see People v. Pringle, 72 A.D.3d 1629, 1629, 900 N.Y.S.2d 215, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 855, 909 N.Y.S.2d 32, 935 N.E.2d 824; People v. Donohue, 64 A.D.3d 1187, 1188, 883 N.Y.S.2d 672; People v. Bergman, 56 A.D.3d 1225, 866 N.Y.S.2d 918, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 756, 876 N.Y.S.2d 707, 904 N.E.2d 844). The People provided the necessary “residuum of competent legal evidence” ( Pringle, 72 A.D.3d at 1630, 900 N.Y.S.2d 215 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and “the decision to revoke his probation will not be disturbed, [absent a] clear abuse of discretion” ( Bergman, 56 A.D.3d 1225, 866 N.Y.S.2d 918 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.