People v Garren

2011 NY Slip Op 04312 [84 AD3d 1638]

May 26, 2011

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason R.Garren, Appellant.

—[*1]Aaron A. Louridas, Delmar, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rosse Parry of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), renderedJanuary 11, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of possessing asexual performance by a child (five counts) and promoting a sexual performance by a child (fourcounts), and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered March 26, 2008, (i) convictingdefendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of failing to register under the Sex OffenderRegistration Act and of violating the terms of his probation, and (ii) which revoked defendant'sprobation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

The facts of this case are fully set forth in our prior decision wherein we rejected anAnders brief, withheld decision and assigned new counsel to address the issue of theseverity of defendant's sentences and any other issues that the record may disclose (People v Garren, 74 AD3d 1578[2010]). Defendant now asserts that the concurrent terms of imprisonment of 11/3to 4 years that he received upon his conviction of five counts of possessing a sexual performanceby a child, four counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child and one count of failing toregister under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) are harshand excessive. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. Defendant has exhibited aproclivity to engage in sexual behavior directed toward minors and to violate the terms of hisprobation (see e.g. People v Williams, 301 AD2d 874 [2003], lv denied 100NY2d 543 [2003]). In view of this and given [*2]that defendantagreed to the sentences as part of the plea agreement, we find no extraordinary circumstances norany abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentences in the interest of justice (see People v Hilder, 79 AD3d1459 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 798 [2011]). Defendant's remaining contentionshave been examined and found to lack merit.

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgments are affirmed.