From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coleman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 8, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-06-8

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kerry COLEMAN, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered December 3, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant's sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration. Shirley A. Gorman, Brockport, for defendant-appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Mary Ellen Gill of Counsel), for respondent.


Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered December 3, 2009. The judgment revoked defendant's sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of incarceration.
Shirley A. Gorman, Brockport, for defendant-appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Mary Ellen Gill of Counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation previously imposed upon his conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[c] ) and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. Contrary to defendant's contention, the People established by the requisite preponderance of the evidence at the violation hearing that he committed acts that constitute harassment in the second degree and thus committed an additional offense in violation of the terms and conditions of his probation ( see CPL 410.10[2]; 410.70[1], [3]; People v. Bergman, 56 A.D.3d 1225, 866 N.Y.S.2d 918,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 756, 876 N.Y.S.2d 707, 904 N.E.2d 844;People v. Schneider, 188 A.D.2d 754, 755–756, 591 N.Y.S.2d 550,lv. denied81 N.Y.2d 892, 597 N.Y.S.2d 954, 613 N.E.2d 986). We reject defendant's further contention that he was denied effective*916assistance of counsel based on an alleged conflict of interest with defense counsel at the violation hearing. Defendant failed to “show that ‘the conduct of his defense was in fact affected by the operation of the conflict of interest,’ or that the conflict ‘operated on’ the representation” ( People v. Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 652, 657, 563 N.Y.S.2d 20, 564 N.E.2d 630;see People v. Konstantinides, 14 N.Y.3d 1, 10, 896 N.Y.S.2d 284, 923 N.E.2d 567).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, and MARTOCHE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Coleman

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 8, 2012
96 A.D.3d 1484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kerry COLEMAN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 8, 2012

Citations

96 A.D.3d 1484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4583
945 N.Y.S.2d 915