| People v Westmoreland |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06158 [164 AD3d 1550] |
| September 20, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Amber N. Westmoreland, Appellant. |
Michael T. Baker, Acting Public Defender, Binghamton (Jonathan Rothermel of counsel), forappellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen D. Ferri of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Dooley, J.), renderedFebruary 21, 2017, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).
In full satisfaction of a five-count indictment, defendant agreed to plead guilty to criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) with the understanding thatthere would be a sentencing cap of six years. Following defendant's guilty plea, County Courtsentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of five years followed by three years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals—arguing only that the sentence imposedis harsh and excessive.
We affirm. "A sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbedunless it can be shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinarycircumstances exist warranting a modification" (People v Tschorn, 164 AD3d 970, 971[2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v McKinney, 141 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2016]; see People v Simmons, 122 AD3d1169, 1169 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1171 [2015]). The concurrent five-yearprison terms imposed here were consistent with the terms of defendant's favorable pleaagreement and fell toward the lower end of the statutory range. In light of such factors, and givendefendant's criminal history, we discern no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretionwarranting a reduction of the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see generally Peoplev Suddard, 164 AD3d 950, 951 [2018]; People v Webb, 137 AD3d 1377, 1377 [2016], lv denied 27NY3d 1156 [2016]; People vManley, 70 AD3d 1125, 1125 [2010]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.