| People v Potter |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06512 [54 AD3d 444] |
| August 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Colin J.Potter, Appellant. |
—[*1] Nicole M. Duve, District Attorney, Canton (Laurie L. Paro of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), renderedJuly 23, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving whileintoxicated.
In satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to driving whileintoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). Within days of entering hisplea and his release on probation pending sentencing, he violated the terms of the probation byconsuming alcohol. At the initial sentencing hearing, he was placed on one year of interimprobation which required him to, among other things, abstain from consuming alcohol or drugsand cooperate in recommended treatment. Thereafter, despite the fact that he showed up for acourt appearance on an alleged violation with a blood alcohol content of 0.21% and also testedpositive for marihuana, County Court continued his interim probation following the finding of aviolation with the goal of placing him in an appropriate treatment program. Defendant's tenure inthe program was not successful, however, and County Court sentenced him to 1 to 3 years inprison, among other things. Contending that his sentence was harsh and excessive, defendantnow appeals and we affirm.
"Absent a clear abuse of discretion or the existence of extraordinary circumstances, a trialcourt's exercise of discretion in imposing what it considers to be an appropriate sentence will notbe disturbed" (People v May, 301 AD2d 784, 786 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d564 [2003] [citation omitted]). Defendant has a long history of similar offenses and his time onprobation for the instant offense was a dismal failure, including a violation before the initialsentencing [*2]hearing, a violation during his interim probationand a number of other instances of alcohol consumption during his probationary period.Defendant's self-induced alcohol and substance abuse problems are not extraordinarycircumstances meriting reduction of his sentence (see People v Morales, 36 AD3d 957, 959 [2007], lv denied8 NY3d 988 [2007]; People v May, 301 AD2d at 786; People v Jenkins, 256AD2d 735, 737 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 854 [1999]; People v Mackey, 136AD2d 780, 781 [1988], lv denied 71 NY2d 899 [1988]). Additionally, even if, asdefendant contends, County Court misconstrued the circumstances of defendant's discharge fromhis treatment program, we are not persuaded that such a mistake would amount to anextraordinary circumstance warranting action by this Court in light of the negative reports of hisperformance in the program.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.