| People v Vallance |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01522 [137 AD3d 1327] |
| March 3, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vRicky Vallance, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (George J. Hoffman Jr. ofcounsel), for appellant.
Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Ramy Louis of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered July 17, 2014, which revoked defendant's probation and imposeda sentence of imprisonment.
In 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him withdriving while intoxicated as a felony and waived his right to appeal. In exchange, hereceived a one-year period of interim probation. County Court (Rogers, J.) determined inDecember 2011 that defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his interimprobation in various respects and imposed a sentence of four months in jail with fiveyears of probation.
In 2014, a violation of probation petition was filed alleging that defendant failed tocomply with several conditions of his probation. Defendant admitted to violating hisprobation upon the understanding that he would be resentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison.County Court (Richards, J.) revoked defendant's probation and imposed the promisedprison sentence, and defendant now appeals.
Initially, defendant is correct that his waiver of appeal in connection with his originalguilty plea and sentence does not preclude his current challenge to the severity of thesentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation (see People v McFadden, 127AD3d 1340, 1341 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 932 [2015]; People v Lavalley, 100 AD3d1151, 1151 n [2012]). Nonetheless, given defendant's lengthy criminal history (see People v Vallance, 49AD3d 917 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]), his demonstratedinability to comply with the terms of [*2]probation, andCounty Court's consideration of the relevant and mitigating sentencing factors, wediscern neither extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of discretion warranting areduction of his agreed-upon sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Coupe, 124 AD3d1141, 1142 [2015]; Peoplev Ross, 67 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2009]).
McCarthy, J.P., Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.