| People v Sookram |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 09207 [156 AD3d 1254] |
| December 28, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ravi Sookram, Also Known as Andy,Appellant. |
Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Tracey A. Brunecz of counsel), forrespondent.
Mulvey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County(Sypniewski, J.), rendered March 23, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrimes of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting and tampering with physicalevidence.
While driving in the Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County, defendant struck a pedestrian,causing his death. Defendant left the scene without reporting the incident and subsequentlyrepaired damage to the vehicle. It was not until approximately a month after the incident thatdetectives were led to defendant, who then turned himself in to police. Defendant was indictedfor the crimes of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, as a felony, and tamperingwith physical evidence. Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges with no sentencingcommitment from County Court. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 2 to 6years for the conviction of leaving the scene of an incident and a concurrent prison term of1
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the sentence was harsh and excessive. "[A]sentencing decision is a matter committed to the exercise of the court's discretion and. . . it can be made only after careful consideration of all facts available at the timeof sentencing" (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981] [emphasis omitted]). "Asentence which falls within the statutory parameters will not be disturbed on appeal absentevidence of a clear abuse of [*2]discretion or the existence ofextraordinary circumstances" (People vFairley, 63 AD3d 1288, 1290 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted],lv denied 13 NY3d 743 [2009]). Here, defendant's sentence was within statutoryguidelines (see Penal Law § 70.00). The record reflects that County Courtconsidered, among other things, defendant's lack of criminal history, his expressed remorse andthe supportive letters submitted on his behalf. County Court balanced these factors with theserious nature of the incident that resulted in the victim's death, as well as defendant's conduct atthe time of the incident, which included a failure to call for help and his subsequent attempt toconceal his involvement in the incident. In our view, the record reflects that the court properlyconsidered appropriate sentencing factors (see People v Farrar, 52 NY2d at 305-306). Assuch, we find no abuse of the court's discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting areduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hey, 74 AD3d 1582, 1583 [2010], lv denied15 NY3d 852 [2010]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Rose, Devine and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.