| People v Cloutier |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06119 [120 AD3d 1462] |
| September 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](September 11, 2014)
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRebecca A. Cloutier, Appellant. |
Richard V. Manning, Parishville, for appellant.
Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered January 18, 2012, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty ofthe crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charging her with criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Pursuant to the underlying pleaagreement, defendant was to be sentenced to a one-year term of interim probation withthe understanding that she avoid the consumption of alcohol and the use of controlledsubstances. If successful, defendant's felony plea would be vacated and she would beallowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and sentenced to probation. Defendant alsowas advised that if she failed to abide by the terms of her interim probation, she could besentenced to seven years in prison. After failing to comply with various treatmentprograms both prior to her initial sentencing hearing and during her interim probation,defendant was found to be in violation of the terms of her interim probation, and CountyCourt imposed a sentence of 1
Although the subject plea agreement contained a waiver of defendant's right toappeal, the People concede—and we agree—that defendant did notknowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive her right to appeal her conviction andsentence. Hence, defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed isproperly before us (see People vMiddleton, 72 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2010]). That said, the record reflects thatdefendant was unable to abstain from consuming alcohol and using controlled substancesand that she repeatedly violated the terms of her interim probation. Simply put,"self-induced alcohol and substance abuse problems are not extraordinary circumstancesmeriting reduction of [a] sentence" (People v Potter, 54 AD3d 444, 445 [2008]; accord People v Bice, 100AD3d 1107, 1107-1108 [2012]). We therefore perceive no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence imposed in theinterest of justice (see People vRiley, 97 AD3d 982, 983 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 935 [2012];People v Potter, 54 AD3d at 445).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.