| People v Helstein |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04040 [95 AD3d 1564] |
| May 24, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| 2—The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vSharon M. Helstein, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joshua S. Shapiro of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), renderedOctober 25, 2010, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny inthe second degree.
Defendant was charged in a seven-count indictment with various crimes arising from thetheft of property from her employer. In satisfaction thereof, she pleaded guilty to grand larceny inthe second degree and was to be sentenced to no more than 3 to 9 years in prison. A civiljudgment had been entered against defendant in the amount of $349,000 in connection with thetheft, and the plea agreement included a provision that defendant would make restitution in suchamount. County Court advised defendant that if she paid a substantial portion of the restitutionprior to sentencing, she might not have to serve time in state prison. The court adjournedsentencing to give defendant time to make restitution. Ultimately, four months after defendantentered her guilty plea when it became apparent that she was unable to make significant progressin her restitution payments, defendant was sentenced to 3 to 9 years in prison. She now appeals.
Defendant claims that the sentence is harsh and excessive. Based upon our review of therecord, we disagree. Defendant embezzled a significant amount of money from her employer andhas a prior conviction for a similar type of crime. She was given ample opportunity todemonstrate her ability to significantly reduce the amount of restitution owed in order to avoid[*2]prison time, to no avail. In view of this, the fact that thesentence imposed was agreed to by defendant under the terms of the plea agreement and uponreview of the record, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretionwarranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Merchant, 79 AD3d1526, 1526-1527 [2010]; People vBirch, 56 AD3d 808, 809 [2008]).
Peters, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.