From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Decker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2011
83 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2008-08684.

April 5, 2011.

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered September 8, 2008, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court under superior court information No. 271/05, upon a finding that he had violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of possessing a sexual performance by a child.

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Covello, Eng, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ.


Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his admission to violating conditions of his probation was not voluntary because the County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry as to whether he fully understood the nature and consequences of his admission ( see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Quiman, 71 AD3d 921; People v Scott, 39 AD3d 570, 571). In any event, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently admitted to violating conditions of his probation ( see People v Royster, 40 AD3d 885, 886-887; People v Ramirez, 29 AD3d 1022).

Moreover, the defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his admission based upon the alleged ineffectiveness of his attorney is not supported by the record.

Since "the defendant admitted to the violation[s] of probation with a full understanding that he would receive the term of imprisonment actually imposed at the time of resentencing, . . . he has no basis now to complain that his [resentence] was excessive" ( People v Grzywaczewski, 61 AD3d 699, 700 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Delpesce, 68 AD3d 1131; People v Trias, 50 AD3d 828, 828-829). In any event, the resentence was not excessive ( see People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179, 1180; People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829, 830; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. Decker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2011
83 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Decker

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL DECKER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 731 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2897
919 N.Y.S.2d 880

Citing Cases

People v. Guzzardo

The defendant failed to complete the program, and the County Court sentenced him to a period of one to three…

People v. Guzzardo

The defendant failed to complete the program, and the County Court sentenced him to a period of 1 to 3 years…