People v Williams
2009 NY Slip Op 06609 [65 AD3d 1423]
September 24, 2009
Appellate Division, Third Department
As corrected through Wednesday, November 4, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carol A.Williams, Appellant.

[*1]Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Mari Ann Connolly Sennett of counsel),for appellant.

Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Czajka, J.), rendered May23, 2008, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter inthe second degree (two counts) and driving while intoxicated (two counts).

Around midnight on August 11, 2007, after consuming several drinks in a local tavern,defendant, while operating her automobile on Route 28 in the Town of Olive, Ulster County,crossed over the double yellow line and struck the victim's car head-on, causing his death.Approximately six hours after the crash, defendant's blood alcohol content registered .14%,nearly twice the legal limit. Following an indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to vehicularmanslaughter in the second degree (two counts) and driving while intoxicated (two counts).Defendant was thereafter sentenced by County Court to 1 to 3 years in prison on each of themanslaughter charges and one year on each of the driving while intoxicated charges, allsentences to run concurrently. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that her term of imprisonment was excessiveand should be reduced in the interest of justice. While we acknowledge that this Court has broad,plenary power to modify a sentence that it considers unduly harsh or severe, such is only done inextraordinary circumstances or where the trial court has abused its discretion, which we fail tofind here (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; People v Potter, 54 AD3d 444, 445 [2008]; People v Rollins, 51 AD3d 1279,1282-1283 [2008], lvs denied 11 NY3d 922, 930 [2009]). While there [*2]may have been mitigating factors present that County Courtconsidered in issuing defendant's sentence, the presentence investigation report detailed her "selfabsorption" and "apparent indifference to the life she took." Thus, noting that it was considerablyless than the possible maximum, we decline to disturb defendant's sentence (see People vCentorani, 294 AD2d 613, 614 [2002]; People v Hearn, 248 AD2d 889, 890-891[1998]; compare People vMaricevic, 52 AD3d 1043 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 790 [2008]; People v Newman, 26 AD3d 589[2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 815 [2006]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis 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.