People v Campbell |
2010 NY Slip Op 09415 [79 AD3d 1458] |
December 23, 2010 |
Appellate Division, Third Department |
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tammy L. Campbell, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall, Jr., J.), rendered October 22, 2009, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Defendant was convicted in 2006 of the crime of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to
five years of probation. In 2009, she was charged with violating various terms and conditions of her
probation and, following a hearing, was found guilty of violating the conditions of her probation by
failing to report for alcohol and drug testing and by submitting a false statement to the drug treatment
court indicating that she was at work at the time that she failed to report. Consequently, her probation
was revoked and she was resentenced to 1
Contrary to defendant's claim, the record reveals that her probation violations were established by
a preponderance of the evidence (see People
v Wells, 69 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2010]; People v Oehler, 52 AD3d 955, 956 [2008], lv denied 11
NY3d 792 [2008]). Both the senior probation officer and drug court coordinator testified that
defendant did not appear for alcohol and drug testing on August 15, 2009 as directed. Although
defendant submitted a statement from her employer indicating that she was at work at the time, her
employer's general manager testified that defendant was not at work at the time the test was to be
conducted. Thus, defendant not only failed to submit to the test, but she also provided false
documentation to [*2]explain such failure, in clear violation of the
conditions of her probation. Furthermore, we reject defendant's claim that County Court's imposition of
a 1
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.