96 N.Y.2d 180 (2001)
A defendant’s probation can be revoked and a sentence of imprisonment imposed for failure to pay restitution, a condition of probation, where the defendant willfully refused to pay and had the ability to do so.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to probation with a condition of restitution. After failing to make any restitution payments, the defendant’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to imprisonment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, holding that the protections under CPL 420.10 (3)-(5) regarding imprisonment for failure to pay restitution did not apply because the defendant’s imprisonment resulted from a probation violation, not directly from the failure to pay. The court emphasized the willful nature of the defendant’s non-payment and his admitted ability to pay.
Facts
Defendant was convicted of stealing over $6,500 from his employer. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, with a condition that he make full restitution within two and a half years. He was given a written copy of his conditions, including full restitution, which he signed. He was also instructed to avoid drugs and alcohol, submit to drug testing, and report to a probation officer.
Procedural History
The Town Court convicted the defendant of petit larceny and sentenced him. The same court later held a probation revocation hearing. The County Court affirmed the revocation. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed and affirmed the County Court’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the substantive and procedural protections in CPL 420.10 (3)-(5), limiting imprisonment for failure to pay restitution, apply when a defendant’s probation is revoked due to failure to pay restitution, a condition of that probation.
Holding
No, because CPL 420.10 (3)-(5) are inapplicable where the imprisonment results from a violation of probation, not directly from a failure to pay restitution, provided the defendant willfully refused to pay restitution when he had the ability to do so.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of restitution is to make victims whole and rehabilitate offenders. Restitution is often used with probation because property crime offenders are often capable of making restitution. The court distinguished the case from situations where a defendant is directly imprisoned for failure to pay restitution under CPL 420.10 (3) and (4). Here, the defendant’s imprisonment resulted from violating the terms of his probation, specifically his willful failure to make restitution despite having the means to do so.
The court cited Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), stating that “depriving probationers of conditional freedom based simply on their indigence would be an invidious denial to one class of defendants of a substantial benefit available to another.” However, the court emphasized that “if a probationer has willfully refused to pay restitution when he or she can pay, the State is justified in revoking probation and using imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for the offense.”
The court noted that the defendant could have sought resentencing under CPL 420.10 (5) if he was unable to pay, but he never claimed an inability to pay and even offered to make restitution shortly before the revocation hearing, demonstrating a contemporaneous ability to pay. The court concluded that the Town Court was within its rights to revoke probation under CPL 410.70 and impose a sentence of imprisonment as authorized by Penal Law § 60.01(4) following the probation revocation. The court stated, “After defendant failed to make any payment of restitution within the allotted two and one-half years, his probation officer sought a declaration of delinquency under CPL 410.30. The court held a revocation hearing as prescribed by CPL 410.70; defendant was given notice of the hearing, appeared with counsel and was heard by the court (CPL 410.70 [3], [4]). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that defendant had violated a condition of probation, revoked his probation (CPL 410.70 [5]) and sentenced him to a year in jail, as authorized by Penal Law § 60.01 (4).”