| People v Feliciano |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07047 [54 AD3d 1131] |
| September 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Feliciano,Appellant. |
—[*1] Terry J. Wilhelm, District Attorney, Catskill (Danielle D. McIntosh of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Pulver, Jr., J.),rendered June 6, 2007, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree in1992 and received a sentence of six months in jail and five years of probation. In July 1992,defendant allegedly violated the terms of his probation by leaving the jurisdiction withoutpermission. Thereafter, defendant was convicted of crimes in Pennsylvania in 2001 and wassentenced to prison there. Defendant was then charged in New York, under an amended violationpetition, with violating an additional condition of his probation, namely committing additionalcrimes. In 2007, as defendant was about to be released from prison in Pennsylvania, a violationof probation hearing was held, after which County Court found that defendant had violated theconditions of his probation. Thereafter, the court revoked his probation and sentenced defendantto a prison term of 5 to 15 years. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.
A court may revoke a sentence of probation "if the defendant has been afforded anopportunity to be heard and the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that acondition of the probation has been violated" (People v Jangrow, 34 AD3d 991, 991-992 [2006]; accord People v Bost, 39 AD3d1027, 1027-1028 [2007]). To the extent that defendant argues [*2]that his probation was revoked based solely on hearsay evidence,we find that contention is belied by the testimony of his probation officer, who testified that hewas unable to locate defendant in 1992 and, through his investigation, uncovered evidence thatdefendant had fled to Puerto Rico. The officer further testified that he conversed withPennsylvania law enforcement officials, who confirmed defendant's convictions in that state.Although this testimony was bolstered by defendant's certificate of conviction fromPennsylvania, hearsay evidence is admissible in a violation of probation hearing (see People v Spragis, 5 AD3d 814,815 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 807 [2004]). Furthermore, although, as defendantcontends, the Pennsylvania certificate of conviction did not strictly comply with the requirementsof CPLR 4540, it is signed by the Court Clerk of the Common Pleas Court of the City ofPhiladelphia, who attests that the records submitted were a true copy of the records held on file inthat court and the signature of the Court Clerk was made under the seal of the court. Therefore,we find that the certificate substantially complied with the statute and County Court did not err inadmitting it into evidence (see People vWheeler, 46 AD3d 1082, 1082-1083 [2007]; Matter of Thomas v New York StateBd. of Parole, 208 AD2d 460, 460 [1994]).
Finally, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that his sentence is harsh andexcessive. Given the fact that defendant was initially allowed to plead to a reduced charge andfailed to abide by the favorable conditions of the plea, and taking into consideration his criminalbehavior in violating his probation, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Bryant, 32 AD3d1080, 1081 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]; People v Buchner, 30 AD3d 912,913 [2006]).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.