People v Parker

Annotate this Case
People v Parker 2017 NY Slip Op 08754 Decided on December 14, 2017 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 14, 2017
107916

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

WELDON LEE PARKER, Appellant.

Calendar Date: October 24, 2017
Before: Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant.

James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Richard K. Caister Jr. of counsel), for respondent.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered September 8, 2015, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In January 2011, defendant was convicted in Ulster County upon a plea of guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentenced to a five-year period of probation. Probation supervision was transferred to Sullivan County in 2013. In late December 2014, defendant was charged with violating the conditions of probation after he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. At an appearance on January 22, 2015, defendant's attorney stated that defendant admitted the violation. County Court adjourned the matter through September 8, 2015, at which time the court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to 1 to 3 years in prison, the statutory minimum sentence for the underlying conviction (see Penal Law §§ 70.00 [2] [e]; [3] [b];

155.30). Defendant now appeals.

Defendant's sole contention is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Inasmuch as defendant was released from prison and discharged from parole supervision in June 2017, his sentence is complete and any claims related to sentencing are moot (see generally People v Cancer, 132 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2015]).

Lynch, J.P., Rose, Devine, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.