People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 20 October 1994 |
| Citation | 617 N.Y.S.2d 577,208 A.D.2d 1051 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark R. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James Rothe, Binghamton, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, Dist. Atty., Binghamton, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and MIKOLL, MERCURE, WHITE and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered August 10, 1992, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
For a period of time defendant has engaged in a pattern of harassment of the female victim, which has led to several convictions and jail time. While on probation for one of the convictions, defendant authored a letter which he signed with the victim's name and sent to a post office box in response to a personal advertisement in a newspaper. The victim thereafter received an unsolicited communication from the person who placed the personal advertisement. As a result of defendant's conduct, a petition was filed which alleged that defendant had been charged with a new crime and had violated other conditions of probation. In particular, defendant was alleged to have been charged with forgery in the third degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree and to have violated an order of protection which he had been directed to comply with as a condition of probation. After a hearing, County Court found the People had met their burden of establishing that defendant violated probation. Probation was revoked and a sentence of imprisonment of 2 1/3 to 7 years was imposed.
Defendant contends that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of a violation of probation. There is, however, abundant uncontradicted evidence that defendant wrote the letter, and his intent to harass or annoy is readily inferable from his pattern of conduct toward the victim. Despite the absence of any direct testimony that the letter and resulting communication from the person who placed the personal advertisement actually annoyed or alarmed the victim, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the communication was likely to cause annoyance or alarm in the circumstances. Accordingly, the proof was sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of aggravated harassment in the second degree. The People were only required to establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence (CPL 410.70[3], and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...2008 WL 2834181 [N.Y. App. Term 1st Dept. 2008] lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 854, 872 N.Y.S.2d 76, 900 N.E.2d 559 [2008]; People v. Johnson, 208 A.D.2d 1051, 617 N.Y.S.2d 577 lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 910, 627 N.Y.S.2d 333, 650 N.E.2d 1335 [1995]; People v. Rodriguez, 19 Misc.3d 830, 860 N.Y.S.2d 859, [......
-
People v. Griffith
...810). In light of the lower burden of proof with respect to probation violation proceedings (see, CPL 410.70[3]; People v. Johnson, 208 A.D.2d 1051, 617 N.Y.S.2d 577, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 910, 627 N.Y.S.2d 333, 650 N.E.2d 1335) and the overwhelming evidence supporting defendant's violations......
-
People v. Johnson
...to 7 years. This court affirmed the judgment revoking defendant's probation and resentencing him to a period of incarceration (208 A.D.2d 1051, 617 N.Y.S.2d 577, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 910, 627 N.Y.S.2d 333, 650 N.E.2d 1335). Defendant then made a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 for vacatur of ......
-
People v. Kochanowski
...should defendant be exculpated because he, instead of placing the phone call to his victim himself, used others to do so. In People v Johnson (208 A.D.2d 1051, 1052, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 910), the court observed that aggravated harassment in the second degree was established by evidence show......