People v Santos

[*1] People v Santos 2014 NY Slip Op 50831(U) Decided on May 16, 2014 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 16, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ.
2011-3059 RI CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Modesto Santos, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Alan J. Meyer, J.), imposed October 5, 2011, upon his conviction, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Defendant was originally charged with felonies and misdemeanors, which charges arose out of an altercation in the course of which defendant employed a knife to injure the victim. Following the reduction of the felony charges to misdemeanors (see CPL 180.50), defendant obtained a highly favorable plea and sentencing agreement, pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge, assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) and was sentenced to three years' probation. Defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, on the ground that the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive and should be reduced to an unconditional discharge.

Normally, a defendant may not be heard to complain that a sentence imposed consistent with the terms of a comprehensive plea and sentencing agreement is unduly harsh and excessive (People v Torres, 69 AD3d 886, 887 [2010]; People v Barnes, 32 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51454[U]; [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]). While an appellate court may, pursuant to its interest of justice jurisdiction (CPL 470.15 [6]; [b]; People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780, 783 [1992]), reduce such a sentence, it should do so only upon a finding that "mitigating or extraordinary circumstances" exist warranting such relief (People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218, 1218-1219 [2010]; see also People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 871, 872-873 [2007]; People v Cruz-Mateo, 40 Misc 3d 131[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51131[U], *2 [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2013]). We find no such circumstances in the record before us.

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: May 16, 2014