People v. Brewer

• Decision Date: 17 March 1997
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony BREWER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 975

655 N.Y.S.2d 975

237 A.D.2d 453

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony BREWER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

March 17, 1997.

Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Philip A. Hohenlohe, of counsel), for appellant.

Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Elizabeth S. Natrella, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J., at admission; Griffin, J., at sentence), rendered February 24, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Kohm, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the third degree.

ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that "a court imposing an amended sentence upon adjudicating a defendant to be in violation of the terms of probation, may direct that the period of imprisonment run consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment imposed on [the] intervening crime which formed the basis for the probation violation" (People v. LaGrave, 122 A.D.2d 294, 296, 503 N.Y.S.2d 914; People v. Jackson, 106 A.D.2d 93, 94, 483 N.Y.S.2d 725). Accordingly, in imposing an amended sentence upon the defendant's violation of probation, it was within the sentencing court's discretion to direct that the sentence run consecutively to the term of imprisonment previously imposed upon the defendant in New York County (see, People v. Wilmot, 208 A.D.2d 968, 617 N.Y.S.2d 882; People v. Klein, 126 A.D.2d 670, 511 N.Y.S.2d 98).

Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's claim that the court violated his right to due process by adjourning the violation of probation proceeding to await disposition of the indictments pending against him in New York County (see, People v. Harris, 145 A.D.2d 435, 535 N.Y.S.2d 397; People v. Cherry, 143 A.D.2d 1028, 533 N.Y.S.2d 767; cf., People v. Jacks, 235 A.D.2d 247, 652 N.Y.S.2d 275).

Finally, the amended sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780, 587 N.Y.S.2d 271, 599 N.E.2d 675).

BRACKEN, J.P., and COPERTINO, ALTMAN and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.