People v. Crandall
| Decision Date | 26 February 1976 |
| Citation | 380 N.Y.S.2d 339,51 A.D.2d 841 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lester I. CRANDALL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Howard M. Aison, Amsterdam, for appellant.
Charles E. Hardies, Jr., Montgomery County Dist. Atty., Amsterdam, for respondent.
Before KOREMAN, P.J., and SWEENEY, MAHONEY, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County, rendered May 12, 1975, which found defendant in violation of conditions of probation imposed by the same court on January 13, 1975, upon defendant's conviction of criminal trespass in the second degree, and revoking the January 13, 1975 sentence and remanding defendant to the County Jail for a period of six months with credit for time already served; and appeal, by permission, from an order of the same court, entered December 3, 1975, which denied, after a hearing, defendant's motion to vacate the May 12, 1975 judgment upon the ground of newly discovered evidence.
On December 6, 1974, after lengthy plea-bargaining, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal trespass, second degree, a Class A misdemeanor. On January 13, 1975 he was sentenced to three years probation with specific directions that defendant obey all laws of the State of New York and that he obtain employment so that he and his family could be removed from the public assistance rolls. Typed on the Order and Conditions of Probation--Adult, signed by both the court and the defendant, is the admonition contained in section 410.10, subd. 2 of the CPL, that 'Commission of an additional offense, other than a traffic infraction, after imposition of a sentence of probation or of conditional discharge, and prior to expiration or termination of the period of the sentence, constitutes a ground for revocation of such sentence irrespective of whether such fact is specified as a condition of the sentence.' On March 11, 1975 defendant was arrested and charged with criminally possessing a stolen chainsaw, which resulted in the filing of a violation of probation by the probation officer assigned to oversee defendant's probation.
On April 18, 1975 a hearing was held at which time the People called Edward Karl, age 18, who testified that on March 11, 1975 he had given the State Police a statement in which he admitted the theft of the chainsaw and implicated the defendant Crandall in the knowing possession of the saw. Karl also testified that his March 11th statement was the full truth and that defendant was fully cognizant of the fact that the saw was stolen when they took the saw to a dealer, V. O. Smith, for sale or repair, and that Crandall conducted all the negotiations with said dealer. V. O. Smith corroborated Karl to the extent that he assumed Crandall was the owner of the saw because of the affirmative, possessive manner in which he dealt with him concerning the saw's sale or repair. Officers Goldman and Brant, B.C.I. investigators with the State Police, each testified that defendant Crandall, after Miranda warnings, admitted knowledge of the fact that the saw was stolen and, in fact, boasted that said fact could not be proven. At an adjourned date, April 25, 1975, the defendant denied any knowledge that the chain saw was stolen and introduced the issue of harassment by the State Police by furnishing the court with a tape and transcript of a telephone conversation between himself and Investigator Goldman on March 27, 1974. The trial court reviewed the contents of the tape and transcript before imposing sentence on May 12, 1975.
With respect to the Violation Hearing it should be noted that the hearing is summary in nature, without a jury, and a finding that defendant has violated a condition of his sentence, after affording defendant a full opportunity to cross-examine the People's witnesses and to present evidence on his own behalf, need only be based upon a preponderance of the evidence. (CPL 410.70.) Therefore, the quantity of proof needed to support a discretionary order revoking probation need not rise to the level requisite for criminal conviction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Carter, 43 A.D.2d 655, 349 N.Y.S.2d 813; People v. Valle, 7 Misc.2d 125, 164 N.Y.S.2d 67), it being only necessary that the proof preponderate against the defendant. In this matter, a sympathetic reading of the voluminous record, despite defendant Crandall's contentions that Karl's inculpatory statement was occasioned by police threats and, further, that Karl was motivated by revenge because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Silkworth
...767, 501 N.Y.S.2d 503 [3d Dept.1986], app. den., 68 N.Y.2d 668, 505 N.Y.S.2d 1034, 496 N.E.2d 692 [1986]; People v. Crandall, 51 A.D.2d 841, 380 N.Y.S.2d 339 [3d Dept.1976]; C.P.L. That probation revocation proceedings could not have been contemplated by Congress or the Secretary as being i......
-
People v. Travis
...36 N.E.3d 98 [2015] ), and we perceive no reason to reject the court's credibility determinations here (see generally People v. Crandall, 51 A.D.2d 841, 842, 380 N.Y.S.2d 339 [3d Dept. 1976] ). We reject defendant's further contention in appeal No. 2 that he was denied effective assistance ......
-
People v. Miller
...not of such a nature that had it been received at trial the result would have been different (see, CPL 440.10[1][g]; People v. Crandall, 51 A.D.2d 841, 843, 380 N.Y.S.2d 339). Defendant had signed a written confession to the crime and, as we noted in his direct appeal, "the evidence of defe......
-
People v. Neuroth
...need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Howland, 108 A.D.2d 1019, 1020, 485 N.Y.S.2d 589; People v. Crandall, 51 A.D.2d 841, 842, 380 N.Y.S.2d 339). Having found this, we agree with County Court that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that defendant violated......