From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hope

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 13, 2000
274 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

July 13, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered October 28, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Leona D. Jochnowitz, Albany, for appellant.

Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney (Kenneth L. Golden of counsel), Hudson, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Following his arrest on drug possession charges, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of a superior court information and certain uncharged crimes. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defense counsel and the People offered a joint recommendation that defendant be sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 4 1/2 to 9 years. Following the sentencing hearing, however, County Court imposed a sentence of 7 1/2 to 15 years in prison. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in failing to accept the joint sentencing recommendation and that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. County Court was not bound by the sentencing recommendation and could properly impose a more severe sentence based upon defendant's extensive criminal history (see, People v. Moore, 270 A.D.2d 715, 705 N.Y.S.2d 425, 426; People v. Hadsell, 249 A.D.2d 682, 684, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 852). Moreover, we find nothing in the record to support defendant's contention that County Court erred in failing to consider any relevant mitigating factors presented during the sentencing hearing (see, People v. Ormsby, 242 A.D.2d 840, lvs denied 91 N.Y.2d 895, 975). Finally, under the circumstances of this case and in light of the information revealed in the presentence report, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see, People v. McCoy, 266 A.D.2d 589, 592, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 905; People v. Beecher, 225 A.D.2d 943, 946) or that defendant's history of substance abuse provides extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention (see, People v. McKenzie, 263 A.D.2d 778, 780, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1045).

Defendant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and rejected as lacking in merit.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Hope

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 13, 2000
274 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Hope

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN HOPE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jul 13, 2000

Citations

274 A.D.2d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

People v. Watkins

We disagree. County Court was not bound by the recommendation (see People v. Hope, 274 A.D.2d 673, 674, lv…

People v. Thompson

Moreover, in sentencing him to a term of incarceration, County Court considered defendant's lengthy criminal…