| People v Crump |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04053 [107 AD3d 1046] |
| June 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vJoshua Crump, Appellant. |
—[*1] James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County(LaBuda, J.), rendered June 27, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrimes of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminalpossession of stolen property in the fourth degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree andattempted petit larceny, and the violation of unlawful possession of marihuana.
In 2010, defendant and a codefendant were charged in an indictment with variousoffenses arising out of their entry into a residence. Defendant pleaded guilty to the entireindictment and waived his right to appeal without consideration. He was thereaftersentenced to an aggregate prison term of 8½ years, to be followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. He appeals, and we affirm.
Contrary to the People's assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdrawhis plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve his challenge to thevalidity of his appeal waiver (see People v Baliraj, 101 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2012]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d880, 880-881 [2008]). Having exercised his statutory right to plead guilty to all ofthe charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as "no promise, pleaagreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration" was given in exchangefor that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal (People v Nicelli, 74 AD3d1235, 1236 [2010]; [*2]see CPL 220.10 [2];People v Meiner, 20 AD3d778, 778 n [2005]; Peoplev Coles, 13 AD3d 665, 666 [2004]).
County Court's treatment of defense counsel prompted a recusal request, which waslater withdrawn. Thus, defendant's claims surrounding the court's improper conduct areunpreserved (see People vWhite, 81 AD3d 1039, 1039 [2011]; People v Mao-Sheng Lin, 50 AD3d 1251, 1253 [2008],lv denied 10 NY3d 961 [2008]; see also People v Carroway, 84 AD3d 1501, 1501 [2011],lv denied 17 NY3d 805 [2011]).
Defendant's remaining assertion, that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive,is without merit. County Court accepted defendant's contrition as genuine andappropriately took into account his age, criminal history, mental health and substanceabuse issues, as well as his role in the charged offenses, in imposing a lighter sentencethan that requested by the People. We thus perceive no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction in the sentence (see People v Sturdevant, 74AD3d 1491, 1495 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]; People vWood, 299 AD2d 739, 744 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 621 [2003]).
Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.