People v Middlemiss

People v Middlemiss 2017 NY Slip Op 03225 Decided on April 27, 2017 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: April 27, 2017
107903

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

v

GEORGE F. MIDDLEMISS, Appellant.

Calendar Date: February 28, 2017
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant.

Mary E. Rain, District Attorney, Canton (Matthew L. Peabody of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered September 9, 2015, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree and waived his right to appeal. Notwithstanding various violations of his release pending sentencing, defendant was sentenced, in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, to six months in jail and five years of probation. Thereafter, defendant was charged with and admitted violating the terms of his probation, including by using illicit drugs. Ultimately, County Court revoked defendant's probation and resentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 2 to 7 years. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, as defendant correctly asserts, his current challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his probation is not precluded by his waiver of appeal entered in connection with his original guilty plea and sentence (see People v Vallance, 137 AD3d 1327, 1327-1328 [2016]). Nonetheless, despite numerous opportunities, defendant displayed an inability to comply with the terms and conditions of probation. Further, upon our review of the record, including defendant's lengthy history of domestic violence, we discern no abuse of discretion nor extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence imposed (see People v Lawing, 110 AD3d 1354, 1356 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1200 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.