You are here: / / DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR...

DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant could not be sentenced to more prison time for a violation of probation in this driving while intoxicated case. Defendant had served the full four years of his 1 1/3 to 4 year sentence when he violated probation by driving while intoxicated, unlicensed operation, refusal of a breath test and operating without an ignition interlock device

[In People v Coon, 156 AD3d 105, the] [3rd] Department held that, “where [the defendant] has already served and completed the one-year definite sentence imposed for the DWI conviction, County Court was not authorized to impose an additional term of imprisonment upon his violation of the conditional discharge terms” … . In reaching that conclusion, the [3rd] Department noted that “[t]he statutory framework governing sentencing does not cover these factual circumstances,” and there were “no corresponding statutes or amendments to already existing statutes that delineated the types of sanctions that courts could impose in a case such as this one” … .

While here defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment followed by probation instead of a definite jail term followed by a conditional discharge, we conclude that those distinctions are immaterial. Defendant served the maximum term of imprisonment imposed, i.e., four years on his sentence of 1⅓ to 4 years, and we conclude that he cannot be subjected to additional prison time under the guise of a sentence based on a probation or conditional discharge violation when, in fact, he was resentenced for the initial offense. People v Zirbel, 2018 NY Slip Op 02064, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DWI, SENTENCING, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (DWI, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT))/PROBATION, VIOLATION OF (DWI, SENTENCING, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD SERVED THE FULL FOUR YEARS OF HIS 1 1/3 TO FOUR YEAR SENTENCE FOR DWI, COULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO MORE PRISON TIME FOR A PROBATION VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE OFFICER’S ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF A SWITCHBLADE; SWITCHBLADE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SWITCHBLADE SUPPRESSED; IN ADDITION, AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Relationship Between the “Open Repudiation [of Fiduciary Obligations] Rule” and the Laches Defense Explained/Allegations that Investments Made by the Fiduciary Underperformed Does Not State a Cause of Action for Breach of the Fiduciary Duty
CLAIMANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM CONCERNING INJURIES INCCURRED WHEN WORKING FOR THE CITY; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO PRE-ACTION DISCOVERY TO ESTABLISH WHEN THE CITY GAINED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER FORGED NOTE AND GUARANTIES WERE RATIFIED (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER LEARNING DEFENDANT HAD FILED A GRIEVANCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER TIMELY REVOKED HER EXTRA-JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF HER CHILD FOR ADOPTION; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAE DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION TO DEEM THE SURRENDER A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A USE VARIANCE BEFORE APPLYING FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE THEIR RESIDENCE AS AN AIRBNB, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE STATED THERE WERE NO IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES REQUIRING... PLEA TO A PURPORTEDLY AMENDED COUNT MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THE COUNT HAD BEEN...