| People v Crowell |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05379 [119 AD3d 1163] |
| July 17, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Skelly A. Crowell, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Patricia C. Campbell of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation andimposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Upon his guilty plea to failing to register as a sex offender (see CorrectionLaw §§ 168-f, 168-t), defendant was sentenced to five years ofprobation on August 27, 2012. Thereafter a violation of probation petition was filed and,on December 20, 2012, defendant admitted to all of the alleged probation violations andwas remanded to jail for a treatment evaluation. It was agreed that if the treatmentevaluation recommended inpatient treatment, defendant would be released for suchtreatment and, if successful, be eligible to be placed back on extended probation.However, if outpatient treatment were recommended, County Court informed defendantthat it would impose a prison sentence of up to four years. After a recommendation forinpatient treatment, the court ordered defendant's release to the supervision of the St.Lawrence County Probation Department on the condition that he admit himself toinpatient treatment and successfully complete treatment. On January 4, 2013, a uniformcourt report was submitted to the court alleging that defendant had violated theconditions of his release by being administratively discharged that day from the treatmentcenter for sexually harassing another patient. At sentencing, after defendantacknowledged that he failed to comply with the condition of release that required him tosuccessfully complete inpatient treatment, County Court vacated [*2]defendant's probation and sentenced him to a prison term of1
We affirm. To the extent that defendant's contention that his admissions to theallegations contained in the violation of probation petition were not voluntary, knowingor intelligent is preserved, the record reflects that defendant's counseled admissions werefreely entered, after advisement of his rights, an opportunity to confer with his counseland an explicit waiver of his right to a hearing (see People v Diaz, 26 AD3d 644, 645 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]). Defendant's admitted failure to successfully completeinpatient treatment established a breach of that condition of release and supports thesentencing court's imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Outley, 80NY2d 702, 712-713 [1993]; People v McDevitt, 97 AD3d 1039, 1040-1041 [2012],lv denied 20 NY3d 987 [2012]). Defendant's argument that an updatedpresentence investigation report was required before resentencing him to prison is notpreserved (see People vAlexander, 110 AD3d 1111, 1111-1112 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d1154 [2014]; People vWarriner, 98 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2012]), and we find no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances to warrant a reduction of the sentence (see People vAlexander, 110 AD3d at 1112; People v Haddock, 80 AD3d 885, 887 [2011], lvdenied 16 NY3d 831 [2011]).
Stein, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.