| People v McCann |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07717 [100 AD3d 1150] |
| November 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert J.McCann, Appellant. |
—[*1] Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.),rendered January 24, 2011, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
In 2007, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the second degree and received asplit sentence of 180 days in jail and five years of probation. In August 2010, defendant admittedto violating a condition of his probation, and County Court restored defendant to probation withan additional special condition. In October 2010, defendant again was declared delinquent, andhe agreed to admit to violating a condition of his probation in exchange for a sentence of no morethan four years in prison and a period of postrelease supervision, the length of which was left tothe court's discretion. Consistent with that agreement, County Court thereafter revokeddefendant's probation and resentenced him to four years in prison and three years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his resentence is harsh and excessive. Wedisagree. Although County Court was aware that there were charges pending against defendant atthe time of resentencing, County Court nonetheless indicated that it would honor the terms of theagreement, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the other pending charges were afactor in the resentence (cf. People vRodney, 79 AD3d 1363, 1365 [2010]; People v Carpenter, [*2]278 AD2d 672, 672 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 798[2001]). Inasmuch as the resentence imposed was within the range that defendant agreed to priorto admitting his violation of probation and the record fails to disclose any extraordinarycircumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest ofjustice, we decline to disturb it (seePeople v Fusco, 91 AD3d 985, 986 [2012]; People v Simmons, 279 AD2d 892,892 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 834 [2001]).
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.