| People v Filion |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09137 [134 AD3d 1244] |
| December 10, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vSusan J. Filion, Appellant. |
Rebecca L. Fox, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Ashley M. Monette of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill,J.), rendered August 15, 2013, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimesof criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and attemptedunlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree.
In full satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one countof criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. The charge inquestion stemmed from defendant's unlawful possession of methamphetamine on orabout September 10, 2012. Defendant also waived indictment and, in satisfaction of asuperior court information, pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted unlawfulmanufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree stemming from an incident thatoccurred on or about March 14, 2013. Consistent with the terms of the underlying pleaagreement, which included a waiver of the right to appeal, County Court sentenceddefendant as a second felony offender to an aggregate prison term of nine years followedby five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending only that thewaiver of the right to appeal was invalid and that the sentence imposed was harsh andexcessive.
We affirm. Initially, the People concede—and our review of the recordconfirms—"that defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiveher right to appeal her conviction and sentence" (People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d 1462, 1463 [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1042 [2014]; see People v Larose, 120 AD3d 1442, 1442 n [2014], lvdenied 24 NY3d 1045 [2014]). As a result, defendant is not precluded fromchallenging the perceived severity of her sentence (see People v Cloutier, 120AD3d at 1463). That said, upon reviewing the record as a whole and taking into accountdefendant's lengthy criminal history, we cannot say that County Court abused itsdiscretion in imposing sentence, nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances thatwould warrant a reduction of defendant's sentence in the interest of justice (seePeople v [*2]Cloutier, 120 AD3d at 1463; People v Howard, 111 AD3d1021, 1021-1022 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1199 [2014]; People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d1265, 1266 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1017 [2013]). Accordingly, thejudgment of conviction is affirmed.
Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.