| People v Williams |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02148 [126 AD3d 1181] |
| March 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRory R. Williams, Appellant. |
Richard E. Cantwell, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
Glenn MacNeill, Acting District Attorney, Malone, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.),rendered January 8, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofcriminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the thirddegree in satisfaction of an amended indictment charging him and his wife with variouscrimes. Under the terms of the plea agreement that was approved by County Court, hewas to be sentenced as a second felony offender to the minimum of six years in prison.County Court further advised defendant that his sentence would include a period ofpostrelease supervision, but did not specify the length. Thereafter, County Courtsentenced defendant to the agreed-upon prison term and imposed a three-year period ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.
Defendant's sole challenge is to County Court's imposition of a three-year period ofpostrelease supervision, which he contends is an abuse of discretion and is also harsh andexcessive. We disagree. Given that no particular period of postrelease supervision wasincluded in the plea agreement, County Court retained the discretion to determine thelength of the term and did not violate the sentencing commitment by selecting themaximum of three years. Notably, the record reveals that defendant has a lengthycriminal record, is a prior parole violator and could have been sentenced to a muchlengthier prison term if convicted of the charges contained in the amended indictment. Inview of this, and given that defendant was sentenced to the minimum term ofimprisonment, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretionwarranting modification of the period of postrelease supervision (see People v Foulkes, 117AD3d 1176, 1177-1178 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1084 [2014]; People v Watson, 115 AD3d1016, 1017 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 965 [2014]).
[*2] Garry, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.