Opinion
September 28, 2000.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County (Sise, J.), rendered April 29, 1998, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Stephen D. Balmer, Middle Grove, for appellant.
James E. Conboy, District Attorney (John N. Clo of counsel), Fonda, for respondent.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 3 1/2 to 7 years in prison. Defendant now appeals, arguing that he should have been sentenced to parole supervision at a drug treatment campus pursuant to CPL 410.91. We disagree. During the plea colloquy, defendant was informed that there was no promise with respect to his eligibility for the drug treatment program by either County Court or the People, nor was it a condition to the plea agreement. Moreover, although at the time of the plea the People took no position regarding a sentence of parole supervision, the People nevertheless expressed their opposition thereto at the time of sentencing. County Court was therefore unable to impose such a sentence (see, CPL 410.91). Furthermore, we reject defendant's assertion that the agreed-upon sentence was harsh or excessive (see, People v. Black, 253 A.D.2d 984, 985, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 980). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.