| People v Hobson |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07012 [43 AD3d 1179] |
| September 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SteveHobson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Rosalind C. Gray of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Crecca, J.), rendered March 29, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed bythe same court (Ohlig, J.), upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, after a hearing, andimposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of burglary in the thirddegree.
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
After the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary in the third degree on March 12,2003 the County Court sentenced him to a term of six months in the Suffolk County CorrectionalFacility, to be followed by a five-year term of probation. The defendant agreed to certainconditions of his probation, including, inter alia, that he (1) report to his probation officer, asdirected, (2) submit to drug testing, and (3) make reparations in the amount of $1,000 plus a 5%surcharge to be paid to the Suffolk County Probation Department.
On March 29, 2005 the County Court held a hearing regarding allegations that the defendanthad violated certain conditions of his probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the CountyCourt found that the defendant had violated conditions of his probation by failing to (1) report tohis probation officer on 10 separate occasions, (2) complete a drug treatment program, (3) paythe required restitution, and (4) abstain from the illegal use of controlled substances. The CountyCourt revoked the defendant's prior sentence of probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment upon the defendant's previous conviction of burglary in the third degree. The [*2]defendant now appeals, arguing that the imposed sentence isexcessive. We disagree and affirm the amended judgment.
"Upon a finding that defendant has violated probation, the court is authorized to revokeprobation and sentence defendant for the original crime" (People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]; see CPL410.70). Moreover, the sentencing of the defendant " 'is a matter committed to the exercise of thesentencing court's discretion' " (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982], quotingPeople v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]). On appellate review, this Court's role is todetermine "whether the sentence is excessive to the extent that there was a failure to exercise theprinciples of sentencing" (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d at 86).
Here, the record establishes that the County Court appropriately considered thecircumstances surrounding the defendant's numerous violations of the conditions of hisprobation, his lengthy criminal history, his family situation, and the underlying crime (seePeople v Costanza, 36 AD3d at 830; People v Bryant, 32 AD3d 1080, 1081 [2006]; People v Rowland, 11 AD3d 825,826 [2004]; People v Miller, 185 AD2d 248 [1992]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Moreover, the imposed sentence falls within the statutory parameters (see People vParmeter, 238 AD2d 811, 813 [1997]; Penal Law §§ 140.20, 70.00 [2] [d]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Skelos, Covello andMcCarthy, JJ., concur.