People v Smith

2011 NY Slip Op 04122 [84 AD3d 1592]

May 19, 2011

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamie S.Smith, Appellant.

—[*1]Abbie Goldbas, Utica, 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.), renderedMarch 6, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sexual actin the third degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.

Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court informationcharging him with various crimes of a sexual nature arising from his inappropriate behaviortoward two teenage boys, one of whom was a relative. In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty tothree counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfareof a child, and waived his right to appeal everything except for the sentence. Under the terms ofthe plea agreement, no promises were made with respect to the sentence and defendant wasadvised that the sentences imposed upon the sexual act counts could run consecutively.Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of 11/3 to 4 yearson each of the sexual act counts and one year in jail on the endangering count. He now appeals.

Defendant's sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. Based upon ourreview of the record, we disagree. It was revealed during the plea proceedings that defendant,who was a forest ranger, faced the possibility of being charged with crimes involving sixdifferent victims and spanning a period of four years, including 36 felonies as to one of thosevictims alone. He significantly limited his exposure to prison by agreeing to be prosecuted by thesuperior court information and by pleading guilty to only four of the crimes contained therein. In[*2]view of this and given defendant's abuse of a position of trust,and notwithstanding his lack of a prior criminal record and other mitigating factors all consideredat sentencing, we do not find any extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretionwarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Maggio, 70 AD3d1258, 1261 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010]; People v Shultis, 61 AD3d 1116,1118 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 929 [2009]).

Spain, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.