| People v Izzo |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05339 [108 AD3d 944] |
| July 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vVincent S. Izzo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney (Damian M. Sonsire of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.),rendered January 23, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes ofcriminal sexual act in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree(two counts), sexual abuse in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child andaggravated harassment in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a 10-count indictment with various crimes arising out ofsexual contact he had with three underage girls. County Court dismissed two counts anddefendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the second degree (two counts),unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the thirddegree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child and aggravated harassment in thesecond degree. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was placed on interimprobation for one year, with the understanding that County Court made no promises as tosentencing upon the conclusion of the interim probation. Defendant thereafter admittedto violating the terms of his interim probation by being discharged from a sex offendertreatment program, buying a computer and sending over 100 emails, some with sexualreferences, to a 17-year-old girl. After County Court dismissed one count of criminalsexual act in the second degree and one count of sexual abuse in the third degree asduplicitous, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of two years followedby three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive inlight of his mental health issues. The record reflects that County Court took into accountdefendant's [*2]mental health condition when it placedhim on interim probation. The court also considered various reports from mental healthprofessionals prior to imposing a sentence that was significantly less than the maximumthat defendant could have received (see Penal Law § 70.80 [4] [a] [iii]).Under the circumstances presented herein, we find no abuse of discretion norextraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest ofjustice (see People vJordan, 36 AD3d 948, 948 [2007]; People v Seavey, 9 AD3d 742, 743 [2004], lvdenied 4 NY3d 743 [2004]).
Rose, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.