| People v Favor |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01873 [49 AD3d 915] |
| March 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DocqunFavor, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose Parry of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), renderedNovember 27, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attemptedrobbery in the first degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree with the understanding thathe would be sentenced to a prison term of seven years. Pending sentencing, County Court granteddefendant's request for furlough in order to allow him to attend to some personal matters. In sodoing, the court admonished defendant that his failure to appear for his scheduled sentencinghearing could result in him being sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years.Despite that warning, defendant did not appear for his sentencing as directed and was eventuallybrought into court on a resulting bench warrant. County Court, having determined that defendantviolated the terms of his furlough, sentenced him as a second violent felony offender to 14 yearsin prison. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Noting that County Court appropriately informed defendant of the potentialconsequences of breaching the conditions of his furlough, defendant's subsequent dereliction inappearing for sentencing excused County Court from adhering to the plea agreement andauthorized it to impose the enhanced sentence (see People v Conklin, 35 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2006]). Regardingdefendant's assertion that his sentence was harsh and excessive, our review of the record revealsneither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstanceswarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see [*2]People v Ashley, 45 AD3d 987, 989 [2007]). Defendant'sremaining contentions are without merit.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.