| People v Holland |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03892 [95 AD3d 1504] |
| May 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| 2—The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JudeJ. Holland, Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Jonathan L. Becker of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards,J.), rendered December 3, 2010, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
Following defendant's plea of guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated, he wassentenced in March 2007 to five years of probation. In July 2010, defendant admitted to violatingthe conditions of his probation, as the result of convictions of attempted menacing in the seconddegree in 2008 and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in 2009, as well as possessing andusing alcohol on numerous occasions.[FN*]
Resentencing was adjourned and defendant was restored to probation supervision to providehim with another opportunity to re-engage in alcohol abuse and mental health treatmentprograms. County Court informed defendant that if he did not comply [*2]with the programs, or if he operated a motor vehicle or consumedalcohol, he would be sentenced to prison. In October 2010, the Probation Department reportedthat defendant had admitted to the continued consumption of alcoholic beverages subsequent tohis admission that he violated his probation. Following a hearing, County Court concluded thatdefendant had violated a condition of his release, revoked his probation and resentenced him to aterm of imprisonment of 1
We affirm. Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court did not base its finding that hehad violated his probation on hearsay evidence. Defendant's probation officer testified at thehearing that defendant admitted to him that he had consumed alcoholic beverages in October2010 (see People v Provost, 35AD3d 899, 900 [2006]; People vSpady, 25 AD3d 881, 882 [2006]; People v Rushin, 196 AD2d 835, 836 [1993],lv denied 82 NY2d 808 [1993]). Nor do we find his resentence to be harsh or excessive.Despite being offered numerous opportunities, he was unable to comply with the terms of hisprobation. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice (see People v Smurphat, 91 AD3d980, 981 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 962 [2012]; People v Smith, 87 AD3d 1203, 1203 [2011]).
Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *: Defendant was also charged inMay 2010 with assault in the third degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and heultimately pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child on July 15, 2010.