| People v Bennett |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05293 [74 AD3d 1581] |
| June 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William S. Bennett, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard D. Northrup Jr., District Attorney, Delhi, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), renderedSeptember 8, 2008, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
In 2003, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of assault in the second degree as the result ofan incident in which he used a baseball bat to attack his estranged wife's paramour while theparamour was sleeping in her house. He was sentenced to four months in jail, to be served on theweekends, as well as five years of probation. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to violating theconditions of his probation as charged in two separate violation petitions. In 2008, a thirdviolation petition was filed alleging that he, among other things, violated the conditions of hisprobation prohibiting him from consuming alcohol and traveling outside the jurisdiction withouthis probation officer's consent. Following a lengthy hearing, County Court revoked defendant'sprobation and resentenced him to four years in prison to be followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant asserts that County Court abused its discretion in revoking his probation andimposing a term of imprisonment which he claims is harsh and excessive. Based upon ourreview of the record, we disagree. Ample evidence was presented at the hearing regardingdefendant's repeated violation of the conditions of his probation. In fact, defendant has evenconceded in his brief that he violated the conditions of his probation. This, together withdefendant's prior probation violations and the serious nature of the underlying crime, justified therevocation of his probation. Furthermore, given defendant's pattern of conduct and the fact that[*2]the term of imprisonment was less than the maximum thatcould have been imposed, we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Spear, 37 AD3d 870,871 [2007]; People v Wormuth, 3AD3d 596, 597 [2004]).
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.