| People v Wilson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06228 [98 AD3d 1167] |
| September 20, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JustinWilson, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams Jr., J.), renderedJuly 27, 2010, (1) convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in thesecond degree and of violating the terms of his probation, and (2) which revoked defendant'sprobation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In 2009, following his involvement in the robbery of a cab driver, defendant pleaded guilty torobbery in the third degree and was sentenced to six months in jail and five years of probation.While defendant was on probation, he and two others forcibly stole a wallet containing $340from an 83-year-old man. As a result, defendant was indicted and charged with two counts ofrobbery in the second degree and also with violating the terms of his probation. In satisfaction ofall charges, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in the second degree and toviolating the terms of his probation, resulting in the revocation of his probation and theimposition of a term of imprisonment upon the underlying crime of robbery in the third degree.Although County Court advised defendant of the maximum sentences he could receive for eachcrime, it did not make any promises with regard to sentencing other than to indicate that thesentences would run concurrently. Thereafter, in accordance with the plea agreement and afterconsidering defendant's status as a second felony offender, County Court sentenced defendant onthe charge of robbery in the second degree to 10 years in prison, to be followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision, and on the charge of robbery in the third degree to 3½ to 7 years in[*2]prison, which sentences were to run concurrently. Defendantnow appeals.
Defendant's sole contention is that the sentences are harsh and excessive. We disagree.Defendant received an extremely lenient sentence for his first robbery conviction. Less than oneyear later, he committed the second robbery while still on probation for the first. Significantly,the nature of defendant's crimes exhibit a tendency to prey upon vulnerable, unsuspectingvictims. In view of this, and given that the sentences imposed fall within the parameters outlinedby County Court under the terms of the plea agreement, we find neither an abuse of discretionnor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest ofjustice (see People v Steck, 83AD3d 1297, 1297 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 802 [2011]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed.