People v Litchfield
2009 NY Slip Op 05212 [63 AD3d 1445]
June 25, 2009
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 5, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marco F.Litchfield, Appellant.

[*1]Michael B. Fisher, Wilmington, for appellant.

Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), renderedDecember 3, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale ofa controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In full satisfaction of an eight-count indictment and other unindicted crimes, along with thepromise that there would be no federal prosecution in connection with those matters, defendantpleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court committed tosentencing defendant to no greater than nine years in prison, together with a period of postreleasesupervision. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant as negotiated to an aggregate prisonterm of nine years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision.

Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that his prison sentence is harsh and excessiveand should be reduced. We disagree. Having reviewed the record, and specifically noting theseriousness of the crimes to which defendant pleaded guilty, we discern neither an abuse ofdiscretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances warranting amodification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Gillespie, 19 AD3d 878 [2005]). Accordingly, thejudgment is affirmed.[*2]

Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur.Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.