| People v Shaw |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04005 [51 AD3d 1062] |
| May 1, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Icoto C. Shaw,Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Benjamin K. Bergman of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered June13, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted criminal sale ofa controlled substance in the third degree and tampering with physical evidence.
Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree and tampering with physical evidence with the understanding that he would be sentencedas a second felony offender to 3½ years in prison and three years of postrelease supervisionon the first charge and 2 to 4 years in prison on the second charge, with the prison terms to runconcurrently. On the original date of sentencing, County Court granted defendant's request for aone-week furlough in order to allow him to spend time with his family, including his newbornchild. In so doing, the court admonished defendant that his failure to appear for thenewly-scheduled sentencing hearing could result in the imposition of the maximum sentenceallowable by law. Despite that warning, defendant failed to appear for sentencing as directed andwas eventually brought into court via a bench warrant. As a result, County Court sentenceddefendant as a second felony offender to 6½ years in prison (less than the maximumallowed) and three years of postrelease supervision for the attempted criminal sale of a controlledsubstance conviction and 2 to 4 years in prison for the tampering with physical evidenceconviction, with those sentences ordered to run concurrently. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant concedes that County Court was authorized to impose an enhanced sentence,[*2]yet asserts that the 6½-year sentence in connection withthe attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance conviction is harsh and excessive. Wedisagree. Our review of the record reveals neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor theexistence of any extraordinary circumstances justifying a modification of the sentence in theinterest of justice (see People vFavor, 49 AD3d 915, 916 [2008]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.