| People v Talmadge |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01034 [48 AD3d 836] |
| February 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnTalmadge, Appellant. |
—[*1] Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.),rendered November 3, 2005, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
Following his arrest in Orange County on the charge of criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in July 2005, defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation inSullivan County, which had been imposed with respect to his convictions there in 2004 forfelony driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in OrangeCounty and, based on that conviction, pleaded guilty to violating his probation in SullivanCounty, with no promises made regarding sentencing. Defendant was subsequently sentenced totwo years of imprisonment and two years of postrelease supervision in Orange County on the2005 charge, as well as a concurrent term of 1
Defendant's failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction [*2]has rendered his challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea toviolating his probation unpreserved for our review (see People v Crudup, 45 AD3d 1111, 1111 [2007]; People v Conway, 45 AD3d 1055,1056 [2007]; People v Underwood,37 AD3d 907, 907 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 852 [2007]). Inasmuch as theplea colloquy does not cast significant doubt on defendant's guilt or the voluntariness of his plea,the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here, as defendant concedes (see People v Hall, 41 AD3d 1090,1091 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 876 [2007]; People v Rose, 41 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 926 [2007]). Moreover, reversal in the interest of justice is unwarranted here.
We further reject defendant's claim that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Consideringdefendant's criminal history and long-term substance abuse, as well as his inability to abide bythe conditions of his probation, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction in his sentence (see People v Barrett, 39 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2007], lvdenied 9 NY3d 863 [2007]; Peoplev Drake, 36 AD3d 967, 968 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 921 [2007]; People v Van Housen, 7 AD3d884, 884 [2004]).
Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.