| People v Sapienza |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00059 [91 AD3d 988] |
| Jnury 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony C. Sapienza, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall, Jr., J.),rendered September 15, 2010, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of thecrimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the second degree (threecounts), rape in the second degree (three counts), criminal sexual act in the third degree (fivecounts), endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), unlawfully dealing with a child in thefirst degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the third degree.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of 17 sexually-related crimes involving twoyoung females. On appeal, this Court affirmed the convictions but found that County Court hadimposed an illegal sentence with respect to some of these crimes and remitted the matter forresentencing (75 AD3d 768 [2010]). County Court, in turn, resentenced defendant on theaforementioned crimes to an aggregate term of 35 years in prison, to be followed by 10 years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's sole contention is that the resentence is harsh and excessive. Based upon ourreview of the record, we disagree. Defendant engaged in a series of inappropriate sexualactivities with each of the victims, beginning when they were only 13 and 16 years of age, overthe course of several months. One such incident involved defendant's use of force to compel one[*2]of the victims to perform oral sex. It is clear from the victimimpact statements that defendant's actions had a profound and devastating impact upon theseyoung girls. In view of this, and in the absence of any mitigating factors, we cannot conclude thatthere was an abuse of discretion or any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of theresentence in the interest of justice (seePeople v Gregory, 78 AD3d 1246, 1249 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 831 [2011];People v Brown, 67 AD3d1197, 1198-1199 [2009]). Contrary to defendant's claim, the fact that he obtained a longersentence than the one originally proposed under the plea offer that he rejected does not establishthat he was penalized for exercising his right to go to trial (see generally People v Welch, 71 AD3d 1329, 1332 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 811 [2010]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.