| People v Harold |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08679 [123 AD3d 1237] |
| December 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRalph Harold Jr., Also Known as Essence Harold, Appellant. |
Carl J. Silverstein, Monticello, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered February 6, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimeof criminal sexual act in the first degree.
In satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexualact in the first degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was to besentenced to 15 years in prison, followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision. Atsentencing, County Court imposed a prison term of 15 years with 20 years of postreleasesupervision. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's contention that the period of postrelease supervision imposed did notconform to the plea agreement is not preserved for our review given defendant's failureto object at the time of sentencing (see People v Wright, 89 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2011]).Nevertheless, because the record demonstrates that County Court specifically committedto sentence defendant to a 15-year period of postrelease supervision, we will exercise ourinterest of justice jurisdiction and modify the sentence imposed by sentencing defendantto the agreed-upon 15 years of postrelease supervision (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).We note that since County Court found the agreed-upon sentence to be appropriate,"defendant need not be provided an opportunity to withdraw his plea as our modificationgives effect to the promise which had originally induced defendant's plea" (People vWright, 89 AD3d at 1233 [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]).
[*2] To the extent that defendantchallenges the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive, we find no extraordinarycircumstances nor an abuse of discretion so as to warrant a reduction of the negotiatedsentence in the interest of justice (see People v Davis, 114 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2014], lvdenied 23 NY3d 962 [2014]). Finally, even if defendant's challenge to theeffectiveness of his counsel were preserved for our review (see People v Wasley, 119AD3d 1216, 1216 [2014]), we would find it to be without merit as the recorddemonstrates that defendant was provided with meaningful representation (see People v Cancer, 16 AD3d835, 839-840 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 826 [2005]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment ismodified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the period ofpostrelease supervision to 15 years, and, as so modified, affirmed.