| People v King |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01838 [93 AD3d 995] |
| March 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alisa A. King,Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Timothy G. Blatchley of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), enteredDecember 14, 2010, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and two counts of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the fourth degree and waived her right to appeal. After complying withthe terms of interim probation, completing inpatient drug treatment and being accepted into thedrug court program, defendant was sentenced to a five-year term of probation. Thereafter,defendant was charged with violating the terms of her probation on two occasions, which sheadmitted. As the result of her second violation, County Court revoked her probation andsentenced her to four years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision for each ofthe crimes, which sentences were to run concurrently. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that her sentence is harsh and excessive. Under the circumstancespresented, however, we do not find that the sentence was unduly severe. Defendant was givenmore that one opportunity to comply with the [*2]terms of herprobation, but was repeatedly unable to abstain from using controlled substances. This was animportant term of defendant's probation given the nature of the underlying crimes and her drugabuse history. Moreover, under the terms of the guilty plea, sentencing was left to the discretionof County Court and it could well have sentenced her to a longer term for each crime followingthe revocation of her probation (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [b]; § 70.70 [2][a] [ii]). In sum, we find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting areduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Feliciano, 54 AD3d 1131, 1132-1133 [2008]; People v Buchner, 30 AD3d 912,913 [2006]).
Peters, J.P., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.