| People v Therrien |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09132 [134 AD3d 1231] |
| December 10, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vKevan G. Therrien, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Albany (Cynthia Feathers ofcounsel), for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Abigail R. Hind of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered April 18, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty ofthe crime of burglary in the second degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior courtinformation charging him with burglary in the second degree. The plea agreementprovided that he would be sentenced to no more than eight years in prison with five yearsof postrelease supervision and required an appeal waiver. He pleaded guilty to thatcharge and was sentenced, as an admitted second felony offender, to a prison term of sixyears with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive.During the plea colloquy, defendant confirmed that he was satisfied with his attorney,acknowledged that his waiver of appeal was separate and distinct from the panoply ofrights he automatically forfeited by his plea of guilty, acknowledged that he was preparedto sign a written waiver of appeal and signed the written waiver of appeal in open courtbefore his attorney. Defendant was 59 years old at the time of his plea and had a 40-yearhistory with the criminal justice system, including seven felony and multiplemisdemeanor convictions. On this record, we find that defendant's waiver of his right toappeal was knowing and intelligent and precludes his challenge to his sentence (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d337, 341 [2015]). In any event, as County Court took into consideration defendant'sserious health problems, among other factors, and exhibited a measure of leniency inimposing a sentence below that permitted by the agreement, and given defendant'sextensive criminal history and the seriousness of his conduct in this home invasion, wewould find, if this issue were properly before us, no abuse of discretion or extraordinarycircumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Ganoe, 122 AD3d1003, 1004 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1163 [2015]).
[*2] Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered thatthe judgment is affirmed.