| People v Pixley |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02981 [117 AD3d 1102] |
| May 1, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vDameari H. Pixley, Appellant. |
G. Scott Walling, Queensbury, for appellant.
James A. Murphy III, District Attorney, Ballston Spa (Ann C. Sullivan of counsel),for respondent.
Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano,J.), rendered January 10, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed asentence of imprisonment.
As a result of his conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree, defendant wassentenced in January 2011 to a term of six months in jail followed by five years ofprobation. In June 2012, he was charged with violating several conditions of hisprobation and, in October 2012, an amended violation petition charged him with failingto report after June 6, 2012. Following a hearing, County Court determined thatdefendant repeatedly failed to report to appointments and meetings as directed and,thereafter, revoked his probation and sentenced him to 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendantappeals.
We affirm. We reject defendant's contention that the People failed to establish that heviolated the terms of his probation by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Filipowicz, 111AD3d 1022, 1022 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1156 [2014]; People v D'Entremont, 95AD3d 1507, 1507 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1025 [2012]). Defendant'sprobation officer testified that she contacted him by phone on June 1, 2012, shortly aftershe had taken over his case, to inform him that he was still on probation and needed toreport. Despite that admonition, defendant failed to appear for three scheduled meetingsin June and July 2012, as well as a court date on June 20, 2012 for a hearing on theoriginal probation violation. Additionally, the officer spoke with defendant on July 13,2012 and informed him that a warrant had been issued for his [*2]arrest and, despite defendant's assurance that he would turnhimself in, he failed to do so. The officer testified that defendant failed to report forsupervision appointments and had no further contact with the Probation Department untilhis arrest in October 2012. Accordingly, defendant's violation of probation wasestablished by a preponderance of the evidence (see People v Welch, 55 AD3d 952, 953 [2008]; People v Walts, 34 AD3d1043, 1043 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 850 [2007]).
Nor do we find merit to defendant's contention that the sentence imposed by CountyCourt was harsh and excessive. Given defendant's extensive criminal history and hisinability to adhere to the terms of his probation—including an arrest andconviction for petit larceny while under supervision—we find no abuse ofdiscretion nor any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of thesentence in the interest of justice (see People v Filipowicz, 111 AD3d at 1023; People v McQuality, 95 AD3d1369, 1371 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1013 [2013]). Defendant's remainingcontentions have been examined and are unpersuasive.
Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.