People v. D'Entremont

• Decision Date: 17 May 2012
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Corbet D'ENTREMONT, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

95 A.D.3d 1507
945 N.Y.S.2d 448
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03895

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Corbet D'ENTREMONT, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

May 17, 2012.

[945 N.Y.S.2d 449]

Eugene P. Grimmick, Troy, for appellant.

Richard J. McNally Jr., Troy (Gordon W. Eddy of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, STEIN, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.

ROSE, J.

[95 A.D.3d 1507]Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rennselaer County (Jacon, J.), rendered March 16, 2011, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sexual act in the second degree and was sentenced to six months in jail to be followed by 10 years of probation, commencing in September 2009. The conditions of his probation required that he, among other things, maintain verifiable full-time employment and attend sex offender counseling. In February 2011, defendant was charged with violating these conditions. Following a violation hearing, County Court sustained the charges, revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to three years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that the probation violations were not adequately proven at the hearing and, therefore, revocation was improper. It is well settled that such violations must be established by a preponderance of the evidence ( seeCPL 410.70[3]; People v. Rockefeller, 79 A.D.3d 1527, 1527, 913 N.Y.S.2d 417 [2010],lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 862, 923 N.Y.S.2d 424, 947 N.E.2d 1203 [2011];People v. Pringle, 72 A.D.3d 1629, 1629, 900 N.Y.S.2d 215 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 855, 909 N.Y.S.2d 32, 935 N.E.2d 824 [2010] ). We find, upon reviewing the transcript of the violation hearing, that this standard was satisfied in this case.

During the 16–month period that defendant was on probation, [95 A.D.3d 1508]he failed to secure full-time employment for any period longer than three days. His probation officer testified that he discussed with defendant the importance of obtaining a job, but that defendant did not seem to undertake meaningful efforts to do so even after he was given time to grieve over the death of his son. For example, although defendant provided him with lists of job prospects, he failed to include the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the contact personnel. Significantly, the probation officer testified that he was never...