| People v Sanders |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 03770 [206 AD3d 1164] |
| June 9, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Travon J. Sanders, Appellant. |
Terrence M. Kelly, Albany, for appellant.
Michael A. Korchak, District Attorney, Binghamton (Rita M. Basile of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley Jr., J.), renderedMay 14, 2019, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted murder inthe second degree, assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree.
Defendant was indicted and charged with attempted murder in the second degree, assault inthe first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. After considering hisoptions, defendant pleaded guilty to the entire indictment with the understanding that he wouldbe sentenced—upon each count and as a second felony offender—to a prison termof no more than 10 years followed by five years of postrelease supervision, said sentences to runconcurrently. County Court imposed, for each conviction, a concurrent prison term of 10 yearsfollowed by five years of postrelease supervision, and this appeal ensued.
Defendant, as so limited by his brief, argues only that the concurrent sentence imposed wasunduly harsh and severe. We disagree. Prior to pleading guilty, defendant was apprised that theminimum period of imprisonment that could be imposed upon a second felony offenderconvicted of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree was eight years(see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [a], [b]; 70.06 [6] [a]; 110.00, 120.10 [1];125.25 [1]), and that the corresponding minimum period of imprisonment for a second felonyoffender convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was five years(see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [a], [b]; 70.06 [6] [b]; 265.03 [1] [b]).Defendant was also well aware of the contemplated terms of imprisonment, and the concurrentsentence imposed by County Court was within the permissible statutory ranges. Upon reviewingdefendant's criminal history and taking into consideration all of the relevant factors (see People v Lancaster, 200 AD3d1352, 1356 [2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 951 [2022]), we do not find the sentence tobe unduly harsh or severe (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).
Garry, P.J., Clark, Colangelo, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.