People v. WhitePeople v. White
In 2003, defendant was charged in three separate accusatory instruments filed in two different counties—Warren and Washington—with forging and fraudulently negotiating checks he had stolen from his parents. He eventually entered guilty pleas to charges contained in each accusatory instrument and received sentences in each county that included a period of incarceration, a term of probation and a requirement that he make full restitution.1 After defendant served his jail sentence, he was placed under the supervision of the Washington County Probation Department and began to make restitution. When defendant failed to fulfill this obligation, two petitions were filed against him—one alleging that he violated the terms of his probation in Warren County and the other claiming that he did not abide by the terms of the restitution order issued in Washington County. While these petitions were pending, defendant made full restitution on the Warren County probation and that petition was withdrawn. Yet, some eight months later, defendant entered an admission in Washington County Court
Defendant claims that his period of probation imposed in Warren County had expired when the violation was filed and, as a result, County Court was without authority to vacate his probation and impose a new sentence. In Warren County, as noted, defendant was sentenced to six months in jail to be followed by five years of probation. The jail sentence was specifically ordered to run concurrently with the jail sentence defendant had already begun to serve in Washington County, and he was to receive credit for time already served. The terms of this sentence, in effect, meant that defendant‘s probation sentence in Warren County began not on October 6, 2003 when it was imposed, but by August 5, 2003, while defendant was serving his Washington County jail sentence.
Moreover, we also find that it was error for County Court to have proceeded on defendant‘s admission to violating the terms of his Warren County probation when the underlying petition had been withdrawn and defendant had already fully complied with his obligation to make restitution. As a result of the
Peters, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and violation of probation petition dismissed.