People v. Pringle
| Decision Date | 30 April 2010 |
| Citation | 72 A.D.3d 1629,900 N.Y.S.2d 215 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bryan D. PRINGLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Theodore W. Stenuf, Minoa, for Defendant-Appellant.
Donald H. Dodd, District Attorney, Oswego (Michael G. Cianfarano of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., SMITH, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND GREEN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of criminal sexual act in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.45[1] ) and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. We note at the outset that we do not consider the contentions of defendant concerning his inability to pay for drug and alcohol treatment. The record establishes that County Court found that the People failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to their allegations that defendant violated the conditions of his probation by failing to comply with drug and alcohol treatment requirements, and thus there is no issue with respect to defendant's alleged inability to pay for that treatment.
Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly determined that the People met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant otherwise violated the terms and conditions of his probation ( see People v. Donohue, 64 A.D.3d 1187, 883 N.Y.S.2d 672; People v. Bergman, 56 A.D.3d 1225, 866 N.Y.S.2d 918, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 756, 876 N.Y.S.2d 707, 904 N.E.2d 844). The People presented evidence that defendant missed four required sex offender treatmentappointments ( see Donohue, 64 A.D.3d at 1188, 883 N.Y.S.2d 672), possessed pornographic materials, and failed to stay away from a park frequented by children, as directed by his probation officer ( cf. People v. DeMoney, 55 A.D.3d 953, 954, 865 N.Y.S.2d 153). In addition, defendant'sprobation officer testified at the violation hearing that she observed defendant at a convenience store while he was on probation, and that his travel log did not contain the required entry reflecting that trip. That nonhearsay testimony provided the necessary " 'residuum of competent legal evidence' " that defendant violated a condition of his probation ( id.), by establishing that defendant failed to maintain the required log of his daily travel ( see generally People v. Roberge, 293 A.D.2d 913, 914, 743 N.Y.S.2d 182, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 680, 746 N.Y.S.2d 470, 774 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wheeler
...of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation ( seeCPL 410.70[3]; [99 A.D.3d 1170]People v. Pringle, 72 A.D.3d 1629, 1629, 900 N.Y.S.2d 215,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 855, 909 N.Y.S.2d 32, 935 N.E.2d 824;People v. Bergman, 56 A.D.3d 1225, 1225, 866 N.Y.S.2d 918,......
-
People v. Bailey
...47 N.Y.S.3d 179 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1085, 64 N.Y.S.3d 175, 86 N.E.3d 262 [2017] ; see People v. Pringle, 72 A.D.3d 1629, 1630, 900 N.Y.S.2d 215 [4th Dept. 2010], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 855, 909 N.Y.S.2d 32, 935 N.E.2d 824 [2010] ). Further, "the decision to revoke [a defendan......
-
People v. Sicoli
...811, 780 N.E.2d 496; People v. Ray, 71 N.Y.2d 849, 850, 527 N.Y.S.2d 740, 522 N.E.2d 1037). We note in any event that defendant was900 N.Y.S.2d 215acquitted of assault in the third degree under count four. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed and t......
-
People v. Robinson
...there was the necessary "residuum of competent legal evidence" that defendant violated a condition of his probation (People v. Pringle, 72 A.D.3d 1629, 1630, 900 N.Y.S.2d 215, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 855, 909 N.Y.S.2d 32, 935 N.E.2d 824 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Cherry,......