People v. Bender — 24 A.D.3d 819

Majority

p. 819

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesse R. Bender, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 443]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered October 7, 2004, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In May 2003, after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal contempt in the first degree grounded upon a violation of an order of protection concerning defendant’s paramour, defendant was sentenced to five years probation. A permanent order of

p. 820

protection was issued to prevent defendant from harassing, annoying or alarming her. In June 2004, a declaration of delinquency was filed, alleging that defendant violated his probation. After a hearing, County Court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Addressing the statutory requirement of a prompt hearing {see CPL 410.70 ^[1]), the record demonstrates that there was neither a statutory nor due process violation (see People v Harris, 301 AD2d 753 , 753-754 [2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 629 [2003]) because defendant’s hearing was delayed as a result of his own requests.^[1] With respect to those contentions alleging calendaring delays, we find that County Court properly exercised its discretion in managing its docket (see People v Brewer, 91 NY2d 999 , 1000 [1998]).

As to the merits, defendant’s admissions at the hearing were sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he violated the terms of his probation (see People v Parsons, 15 AD3d 728 , 728 [2005]; People v Romeo, 9 AD3d 744 , 745 [2004]). Further finding neither an abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in defendant’s sentence (see People v Perkins, 5 AD3d 801 , 804 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 741 [2004]; People v Meyer, 1 AD3d 721 , 721 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]), we affirm.

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

* One request was to have more time to consider a plea offer and the other request was in connection with a substitution of counsel.

Cases cited

People v. Harris 301 AD2d 753 N.Y. App. Div. 2003-01-09 at 753-754 p. 820
People v. Brewer 91 NY2d 999 N.Y. 1998-05-14 at 1000 p. 820
People v. Parsons 15 AD3d 728 N.Y. App. Div. 2005-02-10 at 728 p. 820
People v. Romeo 9 AD3d 744 N.Y. App. Div. 2004-07-22 at 745 p. 820
People v. Perkins 5 AD3d 801 N.Y. App. Div. 2004-03-04 at 804 p. 820