People v Lord

2018 NY Slip Op 02220 [159 AD3d 1283]

March 29, 2018

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 2, 2018

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tammy J. Lord, Appellant.

Barrett D. Mack, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Susan J. Mallery, District Attorney, Schoharie (Michael L. Breen of counsel), forrespondent.

McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schoharie County (BartlettIII, J.), rendered July 27, 2016, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime ofburglary in the second degree.

After working on a residential construction project, defendant unlawfully entered the homeand took a substantial amount of jewelry, which she later sold. As a result, she was charged in anindictment with burglary in the second degree and pleaded guilty to this crime without anypromise being made as to the sentence. She was subsequently sentenced to 51/2years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. She now appeals.

Defendant challenges the severity of her sentence and urges this Court to modify it in theinterest of justice. Although defendant's drug addiction appears to be the primary factormotivating her to commit the crime, we are not persuaded that the sentence is either harsh orexcessive. Defendant has a prior criminal history and violated the victims' privacy by enteringtheir home and taking a large quantity of jewelry that had significant monetary and sentimentalvalue. In view of this, and given that defendant could have potentially received a sentence of 15years in prison (see Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [b]), we find no extraordinarycircumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest ofjustice (see People v Tarver, 149AD3d 1350, 1350 [2017]; People vKime, 95 AD3d 1562, 1563 [2012]; People v Thompkins, 58 AD3d 1068, 1069[2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 822 [2009]). Inasmuch as the contentions raised indefendant's pro se supplemental brief concern matters outside the record on [*2]this direct appeal, they would be more appropriately addressed in aCPL article 440 motion (see People vBanker, 138 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 926 [2016]; People v Guyette, 121 AD3d 1430,1431 [2014], lv denied 27 NY3d 998 [2016]).

Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.