Opinion
2016–01626 2016–01628 Ind. No. 42/02, S.C.I. No. 225/02
08-22-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lottice WILLIAMS, appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two amended judgments of the County Court, Dutchess County (Stephen L. Greller, J.), both rendered December 16, 2015, revoking two sentences of probation previously imposed by the same court (Gerald V. Hayes, J.), upon a finding that she violated conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing terms of imprisonment upon her previous convictions of welfare fraud in the third degree under Indictment No. 42/02, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 225/02.
ORDERED that the amended judgments are affirmed.
The CPL provides for a fact-finding hearing upon a declaration of probation delinquency at which the defendant is entitled to counsel and may cross-examine witnesses and present evidence (see CPL 410.70[1], [3]-[4] ; People v. Donohue, 283 A.D.2d 586, 727 N.Y.S.2d 443 ; People v. Adams, 47 A.D.2d 928, 928–929, 367 N.Y.S.2d 67 ). However, " ‘[a] hearing on a probation violation is a summary, informal procedure which does not require strict adherence to the rules of evidence’ " ( People v. Washington, 55 A.D.3d 933, 869 N.Y.S.2d 557, quoting People v. Minard, 161 A.D.2d 607, 555 N.Y.S.2d 182 ; see People v. Almonte, 50 A.D.3d 696, 855 N.Y.S.2d 209 ; People v. Tyrrell, 101 A.D.2d 946, 475 N.Y.S.2d 937 ; Whitree v. State of New York, 26 A.D.2d 720, 721, 271 N.Y.S.2d 319 ).
Here, the County Court properly took judicial notice of its own file indicating that the maximum dates of expiration of the defendant's probation obligations had been extended ( People v. Sanders, 112 A.D.3d 748, 749–750, 976 N.Y.S.2d 205, affd 25 N.Y.3d 337, 12 N.Y.S.3d 593, 34 N.E.3d 344 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the defendant violated the conditions of her probation by, inter alia, failing to report to probation, engaging in criminal behavior, and failing to pay restitution as ordered. Thus, even if the defendant could establish on this record that she was improperly denied access to evidence, the error would be harmless in light of the undisputed evidence establishing that she violated the conditions of her probation (see People v. Sacco, 44 A.D.3d 1076, 1077, 844 N.Y.S.2d 394 ; see also People v. Donohue, 283 A.D.2d 586, 727 N.Y.S.2d 443 ).
Upon finding that the defendant violated a condition of her probation, the County Court was authorized to revoke probation and sentence the defendant to authorized terms of imprisonment (see CPL 410.70[5] ; People v. Beach, 118 A.D.3d 905, 987 N.Y.S.2d 451 ; People v. Armstrong, 60 A.D.3d 779, 874 N.Y.S.2d 574 ; People v. Hobson, 43 A.D.3d 1179, 1180, 843 N.Y.S.2d 146 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.