Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Rondula Lane

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


April 26, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
RONDULA LANE,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered March 15, 2010.

People v Lane

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Released on April 26, 2013

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

The judgment revoked defendant's sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) and sentencing him to a determinate term of incarceration. We note at the outset that we do not consider defendant's contentions with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his subsequent arrest. The record establishes that County Court did not find that defendant violated the condition of his probation directing that he "shall violate no further laws," and thus there is no issue with respect to the evidence regarding that condition.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the court properly determined that the People met their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation (see People v Pringle, 72 AD3d 1629, 1629, lv denied 15 NY3d 855; People v Bergman, 56 AD3d 1225, 1225, lv denied 12 NY3d 756). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the sentence imposed upon the violation of probation is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: April 26, 2013

Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20130426

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.