| People v Regan |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 04795 [162 AD3d 1414] |
| June 28, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Patrick N. Regan, Appellant. |
Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Kelly L. Egan of counsel), for appellant.
Gary M. Pasqua, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Champagne, J.),rendered October 24, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime ofattempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and (2)from a judgment of said court, rendered January 25, 2017, which revoked defendant's probationand imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and waived his right toappeal with the understanding that he would receive a split sentence of six months in the localjail and five years of probation. Defendant thereafter was sentenced—as an admittedsecond felony offender—to the agreed-upon split sentence, which was to be servedconcurrently. Less than two months later, defendant tested positive for suboxone (for which hedid not have a valid prescription) and was charged with violating the terms and conditions of hisprobation. Defendant waived a hearing and agreed to admit to violating his probation inexchange for a prison term of four years followed by two years of postrelease supervision.Following defendant's admission, County Court resentenced defendant accordingly.[FN*] These appeals ensued.
Defendant's sole argument upon appeal is that the negotiated resentence imposed was harshand excessive. We disagree. Given defendant's criminal history, his admitted inability to complywith the terms and conditions of his probation and the fact that the agreed-upon resentence waswell within the statutory range (see Penal Law § 70.70 [3] [b] [ii]), wediscern "no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of theresentence in the interest of justice" (People v Capone, 160 AD3d 1221, 1221 [2018]; see People v Weidow, 150 AD3d1488, 1488-1489 [2017]; People vWoodruff, 136 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2016]). Accordingly, the judgments areaffirmed.
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentsare affirmed.
Footnote *:Defendant was resentenced toconcurrent prison terms of four years followed by two years of postrelease supervision upon hisconviction under count 4 of the indictment and one year in jail followed by one year ofpostrelease supervision upon his conviction under count 5 of the indictment.