People v Scalia (Thomas)

[*1] People v Scalia (Thomas) 2006 NY Slip Op 52253(U) [13 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on November 14, 2006 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 14, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : ANGIOLILLO, J.P., McCABE and TANENBAUM, JJ
2004-1671 N CR.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

Thomas Scalia, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Valerie Bullard, J.), rendered December 1, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny and sentenced him to six months of incarceration.

Judgment of conviction modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed and remanding the matter to the court below for resentencing upon an updated presentence report and, as so modified, affirmed.

Defendant was charged with petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) following an incident on September 10, 2003, during which he had an argument with his mother, the complainant, in her car. The record indicates that the complainant pulled over and got out of the car to remove some of defendant's personal belongings, leaving her wallet in the vehicle. When she returned to the car, $400 was missing from the wallet. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to petit larceny.

After defendant breached the terms of his initial plea and sentence agreement, he was referred to the Drug Treatment Court and there entered into a second plea agreement and treatment contract. Upon finding that defendant had failed to comply with the treatment program set forth therein, the court sentenced him to the six months of incarceration called for in the second plea agreement.

Defendant has asked this court to reconsider the propriety of his sentence in view of his alleged recent admission into an in-patient drug treatment facility. Accordingly, in light of an [*2]apparent change in circumstances, we find that resentencing upon an updated presentence report is warranted in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; see generally People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513 [1983]).

Angiolillo, J.P., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: November 14, 2006