| People v Coleman |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08736 [178 AD3d 1149] |
| December 5, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Tarrel Coleman, Appellant. |
Michael T. Baker, Public Defender, Binghamton (Jake Buckland 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.), renderedNovember 14, 2017, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sexualact in the first degree.
Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted pursuant to a superior courtinformation charging him with one count of criminal sexual act in the first degree. Defendantthen agreed to plead guilty to the charged crime with the understanding that his sentence wouldbe capped at 10 years in prison followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision and that he wouldretain the right to argue for a lesser sentence. Following defendant's guilty plea, the matter wasadjourned for sentencing. After reviewing, among other things, the presentence investigationreport and a separate presentence memorandum submitted on behalf of defendant, County Courtsentenced defendant to 10 years in prison followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision.Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive.
"A sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless itcan be shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances existwarranting a modification" (People vSindoni, 175 AD3d 750, 750 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v Westmoreland, 164AD3d 1550, 1550 [2018]). The prison term imposed by County Court (10 years) was far lessthan the maximum term of imprisonment (25 years) that could have been imposed upondefendant's conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree—a class B violent felony(see Penal Law §§ 60.05 [3]; 70.02 [1] [a]; [3] [a];130.50)—and the record reflects that County Court gave due consideration to themitigating factors cited by defendant, as well as his request that he be placed in a particularcorrectional facility. In this regard, despite defendant's professed remorse (see People v Davis, 114 AD3d1003, 1004 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 962 [2014]), his assertion that he wassexually abused as a child (see People vTaft, 115 AD3d 1095, 1095 [2014]) and his stated intellectual challenges (see Peoplev Charlton, 192 AD2d 757, 760 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1071 [1993]), the factremains that he sexually abused a five-year-old family member. Accordingly, we find noextraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in theinterest of justice.
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.