| People v Wright |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07874 [89 AD3d 1232] |
| November 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shamel Wright,Appellant. |
—[*1] P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Kenneth C. Weafer of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), renderedOctober 6, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale ofa controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Pursuant toa plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was to besentenced to no more than four years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision.At sentencing, County Court imposed upon defendant, as a second felony offender, a sentence of fouryears in prison with three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Inasmuch as defendant failed to object that the period of postrelease supervision imposed atsentencing did not conform to the term indicated during the plea proceeding, his claim is unpreservedfor our review (see People v Young, 85AD3d 1489, 1491 [2011]; People vDavis, 79 AD3d 1267, 1269 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 797 [2011]). Our reviewof the record, however, reveals that County Court specifically expressed its intent during the sentencingproceeding to impose the sentence that was agreed upon during the plea proceeding, which included atwo-year period of postrelease supervision. Given these circumstances, we will [*2]exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6])and modify the sentence imposed by sentencing defendant to the agreed-upon sentence of four years inprison and two years of postrelease supervision. We note that since County Court found theagreed-upon sentence to be appropriate, defendant need not be provided an opportunity to withdrawhis plea as our modification "gives effect to the promise which had originally induced defendant's plea"(People v Martin, 17 AD3d 775,776 [2005]).
Defendant's remaining claims have been rendered academic by our decision or examined and foundto be without merit.
Lahtinen, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, as amatter of discretion and in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed; defendant issentenced to four years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision; and, as somodified, affirmed.