| People v Stone |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 06301 [164 AD3d 1577] |
| September 27, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles W. Stone, Appellant. |
Mitchell S. Kessler, Cohoes, for appellant.
Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (William D. VanDelinder of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Baker, J.), renderedFebruary 27, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in thefirst degree.
In August 2016, defendant robbed a newsstand clerk at knifepoint. In satisfaction of anindictment charging him for this incident, defendant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guiltyto robbery in the first degree. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felonyoffender, to the agreed-upon sentence of 12 years in prison, to be followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive givencertain mitigating factors, including the substantial amount of time that he spent in foster careduring his childhood, his limited education and his history of substance abuse. Notwithstandingthese factors, we disagree. "A sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will notbe disturbed unless it can be shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion orextraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification" (People v Miller, 160 AD3d 1040,1044 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Defendant has a lengthy criminalrecord consisting of 19 prior criminal convictions of which several are felony convictions. Inview of defendant's extensive criminal history, the violent nature of this crime and defendant'sagreement to the negotiated sentence—which was less than half of the 25-year statutorymaximum for a class B violent felony offense committed by a second felony offender(see Penal Law § 70.06 [6] [a])—we find no abuse of discretion orextraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the agreed-upon sentence in the interest ofjustice (see People v French, 134AD3d 1245, 1246 [2015]; People vJones, 11 AD3d 818, 818 [2004]; compare People v Wyrick, 154 AD3d 1181, 1182 [2017]).
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.