| People v Larose |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06017 [120 AD3d 1442] |
| September 4, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](September 4, 2014)
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vAnthony A. Larose II, Appellant. |
Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant.
Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of St. LawrenceCounty (Richards, J.), rendered December 12, 2011, convicting defendant upon his pleaof guilty of the crimes of criminal contempt in the first degree and attempted assault inthe second degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered May 21, 2012, whichresentenced defendant.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with aggravated criminal contempt, criminalcontempt in the first degree and strangulation in the second degree. While being held onthose charges, defendant was arrested for assaulting a fellow inmate. Defendant agreed towaive indictment and be charged by superior court information with assault in the seconddegree for that crime. Under the terms of a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty tocriminal contempt in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and pleadedguilty to attempted assault in the second degree in satisfaction of the superior courtinformation.[FN*]The pleas also satisfied several other pending charges. County Court thereafter sentenceddefendant, as a second felony [*2]offender, to twoconsecutive sentences of 2 to 4 years in prison, with the recommendation that he beplaced in the shock incarceration program.
After it was discovered that defendant was ineligible for shock incarceration,defendant appeared before County Court for resentencing. Defendant sought to have thepayment of the mandatory surcharge, the DNA data bank fee and the crime victims'assistance fee deferred until after he served his sentence. County Court denied the requestand resentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent 2-to-4-yearprison terms. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. County Court did not err in denying defendant's request to defer paymentof the mandatory surcharge and various fees, inasmuch as he did not establish that thepayments "would work an unreasonable hardship on defendant over and above theordinary hardship suffered by other indigent inmates" (People v Flanders, 110 AD3d1112, 1112 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see CPL420.40 [2]). Nor do we find merit to defendant's contention that the resentence is harshand excessive, given his extensive criminal history (see People v Howard, 111 AD3d 1021, 1021-1022 [2013],lv denied 22 NY3d 1199 [2014]; People v Alexander, 110 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2013], lvdenied 22 NY3d 1154 [2014]).
Garry, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments areaffirmed.
Footnote *:Although the pleaagreement included an appeal waiver, the People concede, and we agree, that defendantdid not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d248, 256 [2006]).