People v. Howland
| Decision Date | 21 February 1985 |
| Citation | 108 A.D.2d 1019,485 N.Y.S.2d 589 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles L. HOWLAND, III, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lucy H. Pantaleoni, Oneonta, for appellant.
Paul W. Elkan, Otsego County Dist. Atty., Cooperstown (Linden D. Summers, III, Cooperstown, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County, rendered October 17, 1983, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In January 1983, defendant was sentenced to five years' probation upon his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree, stemming from his participation in a break-in at the Laurens Central School during which a synthesizer was taken (see People v. McAdams 99 A.D.2d 855, 472 N.Y.S.2d 769). In March 1983, defendant was found to have violated the conditions of probation by failing to participate in the Teen Challenge Program and was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment, together with 4 1/2 years of probation. In June 1983, a second violation was filed against defendant premised on his conviction for disorderly conduct. This conviction, however, was later vacated and the violation was not pursued. Finally, in October 1983, defendant was found to have violated the conditions of probation by abusing alcohol. After a hearing, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years' imprisonment. This appeal ensued.
Defendant urges that the condition of probation found to have been violated, i.e., that he was not to "abuse the use of alcohol", was unconstitutionally vague and could not support a basis for the violation. We disagree. The condition is sufficiently explicit to inform a reasonable person of conduct to be avoided (see People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419, 423 N.Y.S.2d 625, 399 N.E.2d 513, appeal dismissed 446 U.S. 901, 100 S.Ct. 1825, 64 L.Ed.2d 254; People v. Miller, 106 A.D.2d 787, 484 N.Y.S.2d 183 ). There is ample evidence to establish a violation of this condition. Defendant was shown to have become disruptive and intoxicated at a wedding reception in a public establishment. In view of defendant's evident inability to comply with the conditions of probation, we cannot say that County Court abused its discretion by revoking probation and imposing a sentence within the statutory guidelines (Penal Law § 70.00; People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wheeler
...and therefore is not unconstitutionally vague ( id.;see People v. York, 2 A.D.3d 1158, 1160, 770 N.Y.S.2d 169;People v. Howland, 108 A.D.2d 1019, 1020, 485 N.Y.S.2d 589;see generally People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412, 420–421, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28). Given the nature of defendant's u......
-
People v. Berkley
...abuse its discretion by revoking defendant's probation and imposing a sentence within the statutory guidelines (see, People v. Howland, 108 A.D.2d 1019, 485 N.Y.S.2d 589). Judgment WEISS, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH and MERCURE, JJ., concur. * At a later date, defendant was convicted and sen......
-
Gregory M, Matter of
...this standard has been challenged on due process grounds New York Courts have found it to be constitutional. Peo. v. Howland, 108 A.D.2d 1019, 485 N.Y.S.2d 589 (3rd Dept., 1985); Peo. v. Morse, 96 A.D.2d 654, 466 N.Y.S.2d 521 (3rd In Peo. v. Morse, supra, the Court relied on two United Stat......
-
People v. Selby
...avoid, and does not subject him to strict liability (see People v. Tucker, 302 A.D.2d 752, 753, 757 N.Y.S.2d 117 ; People v. Howland, 108 A.D.2d 1019, 1020, 485 N.Y.S.2d 589 ). The condition requires the defendant to "refrain" from contact with any other sex offender, which suggests that th......