| People v Lazore |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00237 [102 AD3d 1017] |
| January 17, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJessica T. Lazore, 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 (MainJr., J.), rendered January 24, 2011, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of thecrime of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree.
Following a night of hard drinking, defendant and the victim each left the All InnLounge in Franklin County. Although defendant and the victim departed from thatestablishment separately, both of them subsequently wound up on St. Regis Road in theTown of Bombay, Franklin County at approximately 5:30 a.m.; the victim was walkingalong the road on foot and defendant was driving her Pontiac minivan. Defendant struckthe victim with her vehicle, and the victim died from the injuries inflicted.
Defendant thereafter was indicted and charged in a four-count indictment withvarious alcohol-related driving offenses and, in full satisfaction thereof, pleaded guilty tovehicular manslaughter in the first degree and waived her right to appealexcept—insofar as is relevant here—as to issues related to sentencing.County Court, consistent with its representation that it would not sentence defendant tomore than seven years in prison, thereafter imposed a sentence of 2
We affirm. Initially, to the extent that defendant contends that the presentenceinvestigation report (hereinafter PSI) contained inaccurate information regarding the[*2]circumstances under which County Court could orderthe installation of an ignition interlock device (see Vehicle and Traffic Law§ 1198), the record reflects that County Court expressly deferred any issuesregarding the installation of such a device to the Board of Parole (see ExecutiveLaw § 259-c [15-a]). As County Court plainly did not rely upon the purportedlyerroneous information contained in the PSI on this point, we perceive no legal defect inthe sentence imposed (seePeople v Williamson, 72 AD3d 1339, 1339 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d779 [2010]; see also People v Walworth, 167 AD2d 622, 623 [1990]).Additionally, even assuming that defendant's related ineffective assistance of counselclaim impacts upon the voluntariness of her plea and, hence, survives her unchallengedwaiver of the right to appeal, this issue is—absent record evidence of anappropriate postallocution motion—unpreserved for our review (see People v Tatum, 82 AD3d1411, 1411 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 810 [2011]).
Defendant's challenge to the claimed severity of her sentence is equally unavailing.Although the PSI reflects that the instant offense represents defendant's first criminalconviction, defendant has history of alcohol abuse, and her decision to operate a motorvehicle on the morning in question resulted in the death of a 21-year-old father of two.Accordingly, despite the remorse expressed by defendant at the time of sentencing, wecannot say that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive.
Peters, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.