| People v O'Leary |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06300 [164 AD3d 1576] |
| September 27, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jacob O'Leary, Appellant. |
Dominic J. Cornelius, Public Defender, Hudson (Jessica Howser of counsel), forappellant.
Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (Krista Kline of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), renderedJanuary 13, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in thesecond degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior courtinformation charging him with one count of assault in the first degree. In full satisfaction of boththe superior court information and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to assault inthe second degree with no sentencing commitment from County Court. County Court thereafterimposed a prison term of four years to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Thisappeal ensued.
We affirm. Although defendant retained the right to challenge the sentence imposed uponappeal, "[a] sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unlessit can be shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstancesexist warranting a modification" (Peoplev Miller, 160 AD3d 1040, 1044 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted],lv denied — NY3d &mdash, 2018 NY Slip Op 98663[U] [2018]; see People v Crippen, 156 AD3d946, 952 [2017]). Defendant was convicted of a class D violent felony for which he couldhave received a prison term of seven years (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [3][c]; 120.05 [2]). Despite defendant's expressed remorse at sentencing, given his criminal historyand the extent of the victim's injuries, we discern no basis upon which to disturb the sentenceimposed (see generally People vTetreault, 131 AD3d 1327, 1328 [2015]; People v Jarvis, 115 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014], lv denied 23NY3d 1038 [2014]). Defendant's remaining contentions have been examined and found to belacking in merit.
Devine, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.