| People v Herring |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05291 [74 AD3d 1579] |
| June 17, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v David Herring, Appellant. |
—[*1] Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney, Hudson (H. Neal Conolly of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), renderedJanuary 6, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the seventh degree (three counts).
Defendant was charged in an indictment with three counts of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance inthe seventh degree after he sold cocaine to undercover police officers on three separateoccasions. He pleaded guilty to all of the charges contained in the indictment in satisfactionthereof. County Court advised defendant of the possible sentences that could be imposed,including that such sentences could run consecutive to one another and that he could receivelonger sentences due to his prior felony conviction, but made no promises with respect tosentencing. In imposing sentence, County Court determined that the last four counts of theindictment would run concurrent to one another but consecutive to the first two counts andsentenced defendant to a total of 10 years in prison to be followed by three years of postreleasesupervision. Despite defense counsel's request, County Court declined to direct that defendantparticipate in the Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (hereinafter CASAT)program during his incarceration. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive and that he shouldhave been directed to participate in the CASAT program. Based upon our review of the [*2]record, we disagree. Defendant exhibited a pattern of drug-relatedactivity as is evidenced by the offenses charged in the indictment as well as his criminal record.In addition, no promises were made by County Court with respect to sentencing and defendantactually received a much lesser sentence than he could have if convicted after trial. Thus, we findno abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of thesentence in the interest of justice (seePeople v McDonald, 43 AD3d 1207 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 867 [2008]; People v Reynoso, 11 AD3d 719,720 [2004]; People v Davis, 4AD3d 567, 568 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]). Likewise, County Court didnot abuse its discretion in failing to direct defendant's participation in the CASAT program(see Penal Law § 60.04 [6]).
Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.