People v. Whindleton

Aug 19, 2008
Versions:54 A.D.3d 422
862 N.Y.S.2d 295

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that a condition of probation, which precluded him from residing with his mother and his siblings, violated Penal Law § 65.10 and the United States Constitution. Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court was authorized to impose this condition of probation since it had a rehabilitative purpose, and was necessary to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense and to prevent the incarceration of the defendant (see Penal Law § 65.10 [1], [2], [5]; People v Rocco, 309 AD2d 882 [2003]; People v Myatt, 248 AD2d 68 [1998]). Furthermore, there was a substantial showing that the challenged condition was reasonably and necessarily related to the rehabilitative and ameliorative purposes of the statute (see Farrell v Burke, 449 F3d 470, 497 [2006]; Birzon v King, 469 F2d 1241, 1243 [1972]; cf. Tremper v Ulster County Dept. of Probation, 160 F Supp 2d 352 [2001]).

The defendant‘s constitutional claim is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.