THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. BRYAN DONES (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date:  October 9, 2026

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Carol Cocchiola, J.), rendered October 31, 2025, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In 2022, defendant pleaded guilty in Erie County Court to criminal possession of a firearm (see Penal Law § 265.01–b) and two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (see Penal Law § 220.39) and was sentenced to three concurrent five-year terms of probation.  In January 2024, following transfer of his probation to Broome County, defendant was charged with certain probation violations.  He entered an admission to each of the violations and was restored to probation effective June 2024.  Defendant was again charged with probation violations in July 2025 – specifically, traveling outside of Broome County without permission and failing to report contact with law enforcement within 24 hours following a traffic stop, from which, notably, he fled the scene.  After an evidentiary hearing, County Court determined that defendant had violated the terms of his probation.  Upon resentencing, the court revoked probation and imposed concurrent four-year prison terms, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision, for defendant's controlled substance convictions and a lesser concurrent indeterminate term for his firearm conviction.  Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues that the imposition of concurrent four-year terms of incarceration upon resentencing was harsh and excessive.  Although this argument has not been rendered moot by defendant's apparent release to parole supervision (see People v. Purdie, 205 AD3d 1225, 1226 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1135 [2022] ), we are unpersuaded.  The record reflects that County Court had previously warned defendant that a second probation violation, if sustained, would result in his incarceration.  Further, the court described that it was disturbed by defendant's fleeing from the traffic stop, while police officers stood on both sides of the vehicle that he rapidly accelerated.  Considering the underlying circumstances, as well as that the sentences were well below the legally permissible maximum and imposed concurrently, rather than consecutively, we do not find the resentence unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15[6][b];  People v. Hughes, 241 AD3d 1622, 1623 [3d Dept 2025];  People v. McKnight, 231 AD3d 1205, 1207 [3d Dept 2024] ).  Defendant's remaining argument, to the extent not specifically addressed, has been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Aarons, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.