| People v Thomas |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08361 [56 AD3d 815] |
| November 6, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Seth Thomas,Appellant. |
—[*1] Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Rose, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), renderedAugust 21, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving whileability impaired.
Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired with the understanding that hissentence would be capped at one year of local jail time. When he then sought to be releasedwithout bail pending sentencing, defendant was advised that he would receive the agreed-uponsentence if, among other things, he appeared for sentencing. As for the consequences of failing todo so, County Court stated, "I [will] sentence you to whatever I [feel] appropriate under whateverthe changed circumstances. I will sentence you even if you are not here." Upon defendant'sfailure to appear, County Court sentenced defendant to 2
We affirm. As the record reflects that defendant clearly was apprised that County Court [*2]would not be bound by the agreed-upon sentence should defendantfail to appear on the scheduled sentencing date, County Court granted a brief adjournment in aneffort to secure defendant's presence prior to sentencing him in absentia and defendant's profferedexcuses for his failure to appear are both unsupported and unpersuasive, we conclude that theenhanced sentence imposed was justified (see People v Flanders, 53 AD3d 866 [2008]; People v Favor, 49 AD3d 915[2008]). To the extent that defendant, who has two prior convictions for driving whileintoxicated and a demonstrated history of substance abuse, contends that the enhanced sentencewas harsh and excessive, our review of the record fails to disclose either an abuse of discretion orthe existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interestof justice (see People v Shaw, 51AD3d 1062, 1063 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 964 [2008]; People v Walker, 30 AD3d 823[2006]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *: Defendant received shockincarceration, has been released on parole and is pursuing this appeal in an effort to reduce hisperiod of parole supervision.