People v. Mulleavey
Opinion of the Court
Appeals by the
Ordered that the amended judgments are affirmed.
The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the sentences imposed upon the revocation of the probationary sentences were excessive. Upon a finding that the defendant violated conditions of his probation, the court was authorized to revoke the sentences of probation previously imposed and to impose sentences of imprisonment upon his previous convictions (see People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829 [2007]). Taking into consideration the defendant’s history, the nature of the crimes, the multiple violations of probation, the fact that the sentences imposed were within the statutory guidelines, and the absence of any mitigating factors, we find that the sentences were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829 [2007]; People v Wyant, 274 AD2d 673 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.