| People v Sanchez |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06603 [87 AD3d 1226] |
| September 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v AnikeSanchez, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),rendered February 10, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes ofattempted burglary in the second degree and escape in the second degree.
Upon defendant's plea of guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree and escape in thesecond degree, County Court (Schneer, J.) agreed to sentence her to the Willard substance abuseprogram. However, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, the court (Williams, J.)determined that the Willard program was not appropriate and indicated that it would insteadsentence defendant to an aggregate term of four years in prison followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. After defendant declined the court's subsequent offers to allow her towithdraw her plea, the court sentenced her accordingly. Defendant now appeals.
Where a court determines that the negotiated sentence is not appropriate, it may impose anenhanced sentence if it first offers the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea (see People v Wilson, 69 AD3d970, 971 [2010]; People vHaslow, 20 AD3d 680, 681 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 828 [2005]; see also People v Bonville, 69 AD3d1223, 1224 [2010]). Here, defendant, who was fully informed at the sentencing proceedingof the sentence that County Court intended to impose, repeatedly declined the court's offers towithdraw her plea and elected to proceed with sentencing. Accordingly, we find no abuse ofdiscretion in the court's imposition [*2]of an enhanced sentence(see People v Washburn, 76 AD3d1120, 1120-1121 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 864 [2011]; People v Wilson,69 AD3d at 971). Furthermore, given defendant's criminal history and inability to comply withsupervision, we are not persuaded that her substance abuse problems constitute extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of her sentence (see People v Jones, 9 AD3d 686, 687 [2004]; People v Kane, 6 AD3d 986, 987[2004]; People v Vansickle, 301 AD2d 963, 964 [2003]).
Rose, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.