Opinion
107153.
03-03-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James D. GUYETT, Appellant.
Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant. Gwen Wilkinson, District Attorney, Ithaca (Andrew J. Bonavia of counsel), for respondent.
Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant.
Gwen Wilkinson, District Attorney, Ithaca (Andrew J. Bonavia of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Rowley, J.), rendered September 4, 2014, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to five years of probation. Thereafter, a violation of probation petition was filed against him. County Court issued an arrest warrant and, over two years later, defendant was located after he was arrested in Schenectady County for driving while intoxicated. Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation by failing to report. County Court revoked his probation and resentenced him to a prison term of 1? to 4 years. Defendant now appeals, contending that his sentence is harsh and excessive.
We affirm. Initially, although defendant was released from prison in September 2015, his appeal is not moot inasmuch as he remains on parole (see People v. Donnelly, 80 A.D.3d 797, 798, 914 N.Y.S.2d 385 2011; People v. Stewart, 185 A.D.2d 381, 382, 585 N.Y.S.2d 621 1992, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 977, 591 N.Y.S.2d 146, 605 N.E.2d 882 1992 ). “A sentence that is within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification” (People v. Ciarleglio, 299 A.D.2d 571, 572, 748 N.Y.S.2d 876 2002 [citations omitted]; accord People v. Lowe, 53 A.D.3d 982, 983, 863 N.Y.S.2d 275 2008 ). Here, defendant had been unable to comply with the conditions of his probation. Further, the resentence imposed was both authorized and within the range that defendant agreed to prior to admitting his violation of probation. Under the circumstances presented herein, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting the reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. McCann, 100 A.D.3d 1150, 1151, 953 N.Y.S.2d 400 2012; People v. Smurphat, 91 A.D.3d 980, 981, 936 N.Y.S.2d 356 2012, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 962, 944 N.Y.S.2d 491, 967 N.E.2d 716 2012 ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
EGAN JR., J.P., ROSE, LYNCH and CLARK, JJ., concur.