Majority
Two conditions of defendant’s probation were that he must not commit further crimes or offenses and must not possess mood-altering substances without a prescription. Defendant’s father found two pills on defendant’s person and, after a pat search, a police officer found in defendant’s pocket a package labeled “Manhattan Spice.” County Court properly determined, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Although there was no expert testimony with respect to the pills, nor was testing performed on the pills, both the police officer who conducted the pat search and a probation supervisor testified that, based upon their training and experience, the pills that were received in evidence were Adderall, and one of the pills was labeled to that effect. The probation supervisor testified that defendant did not have a prescription for Adderall. The police officer testified that Manhattan Spice was a legal, mind-altering drug, and the labeled package of that drug was admitted in evidence.
We also reject defendant’s contention that his sentence is illegal. Because defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender under CPL 720.20 (1) (a), the six-month limitation in Penal Law § 60.02 (1) did not apply and he was properly sentenced to one year of imprisonment (see § 70.15 [1]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Valentino, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Maldonado 44 AD3d 793 at 793-794 p. 1646