| People v Montpetit |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01861 [170 AD3d 1341] |
| March 14, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert W. Montpetit, 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.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richey, J.), renderedJuly 27, 2017, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence ofimprisonment.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior courtinformation charging him with one count of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehiclein the first degree and one count of driving while intoxicated. Consistent with the negotiated pleaagreement, defendant agreed to waive his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to both class Efelonies with the understanding that, if he successfully completed a treatment program, he wouldbe sentenced to five years of probation. Following his plea of guilty, County Court sentenceddefendant, who had successfully completed treatment, to concurrent five-year terms ofprobation—subject to various conditions. Two months later, defendant was charged withviolating certain terms of his probation, including operating a motor vehicle without a license,testing positive for cocaine and snorting oxycodone. Defendant thereafter admitted to violatinghis probation in exchange for a prison sentence of 1 to 3 years. Accordingly, County Courtrevoked defendant's probation and imposed concurrent prison terms of 1 to 3 years followed by athree-year conditional discharge. Defendant now appeals, contending only that the sentenceimposed was harsh and excessive.
Although "[d]efendant's original waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude his challengeto the resentence" (People vCapone, 160 AD3d 1221, 1221 n [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1146 [2018]),given defendant's alcohol-related criminal history, his admitted violation of multiple conditionsof his probation and the fact that the agreed-upon sentence imposed was the statutory minimumterm for the two class E felonies to which defendant pleaded guilty (see Penal Law§ 70.00 [2] [e]; [3] [b]), we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse ofdiscretion warranting a reduction of the promised resentence in the interest of justice (see People v Regan, 162 AD3d1414, 1415 [2018]; People v Capone, 160 AD3d at 1221). Accordingly, thejudgment of conviction is affirmed.
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Mulvey, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.