| People v Rockefeller |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09576 [79 AD3d 1527] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey MichaelRockefeller, Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Steven M. Sharp of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.),rendered August 12, 2009, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with making a terroristic threat and aggravated harassmentin the second degree after he threatened to murder an Assistant District Attorney in the RensselaerCounty District Attorney's office. In June 2008, he pleaded guilty to attempted making a terroristicthreat and was sentenced to five years of probation. Less than a year later, defendant was arrested andcharged with similar crimes—making a terroristic threat, stalking in the third degree andaggravated harassment in the second degree—arising out of death threats made to aninvestigator for the Rensselaer County District Attorney's office, as well as to the investigator'simmediate family. Thereafter, defendant was charged with violating the condition of his probation thatprohibited him from violating any federal, state or local laws. Following a hearing, County Courtterminated defendant's probation and sentenced him to 1
A probation violation must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (see CPL410.70 [3]; People v Cruz, 35 AD3d898, 899 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 845 [2007]). Here, defendant's probation officertestified that defendant informed her that he was going to beat the [*2]investigator and that the investigator "should hope that he doesn't die fromhis beatings." The Rensselaer County District Attorney testified that defendant said to him, "[Y]ourinvestigator . . . is a dead man." The investigator testified that he began receivingthreatening phone calls in August 2008 and that, although defendant identified himself by name on onlyone occasion, the investigator always recognized defendant's voice because the two had spoken withone another more than 100 times. According to the investigator, defendant threatened his life duringevery conversation and once stated that he was going to burn down the house at a specific address and"kill everybody in it." The house located at the address cited by defendant belonged to the investigator'smother.
In light of the foregoing, we disagree with defendant's assertion that the People failed to prove by apreponderance of the evidence that he violated a condition of his probation (see People v Ruff, 50 AD3d 1167,1168 [2008]; People v Bost, 39 AD3d1027, 1027-1028 [2007]). Furthermore, given defendant's extensive criminal history and thepattern of conduct underlying his most recent offenses, we find no extraordinary circumstances or anabuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Bennett, 74 AD3d 1581,1582 [2010]). To the extent not specifically addressed, defendant's remaining contentions have beenconsidered and found to be unpersuasive.
Mercure, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.