People v Tetreault

People v Tetreault 2015 NY Slip Op 06936 Decided on September 24, 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: September 24, 2015
106796

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v

RYAN M. TETREAULT, Appellant.

Calendar Date: August 10, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ.

G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Ashley M. Monette, Law Intern), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered April 22, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, with no sentencing commitment by County Court. The court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an aggregate prison term of seven years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, asserting that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. We disagree. Although defendant expressed remorse for his crimes and took steps to

address his substance abuse problem, given his criminal history and his exposure to a much more substantial prison term, we find that County Court appropriately considered relevant information and factors in imposing the sentence, and the record evinces no extraordinary circumstances to warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v O'Brien, 122 AD3d 957, 958 [2014]; People v Mitchell, 41 AD3d 1045, 1045-1046 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 924 [2007]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.