People v Hudson (Sean)

[*1] People v Hudson (Sean) 2014 NY Slip Op 51159(U) Decided on July 24, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 24, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : IANNACCI, J.P., MARANO And GARGUILO, JJ.
2012-964 S CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Sean M. Hudson, Appellant.

Appeal, as limited by the brief, from a sentence of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Glenn A. Murphy, J.), imposed March 21, 2012, upon defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a hypodermic needle, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a hypodermic needle (Penal Law § 220.45) and received a bargained-for sentence of three years' probation with conditions. Defendant, in his brief, limits his appeal to the request that this court, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, reduce his sentence, as unduly harsh or excessive, to that of a conditional discharge. Although an appellate court has "broad, plenary power to modify a sentence" (People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780, 783 [1992]) "even where a trial court has not abused its [sentencing] discretion" (People v Edwards, 37 AD3d 289, 290 [2007]), as a general rule, "where [a] defendant effects a plea bargain and receives the precise sentence that was promised, he should not later be heard to complain that he received what he bargained for" (People v Fair, 33 AD3d 558, 558 [2006]; see also People v Torres, 69 AD3d 886, 887 [2010]). The exception is a showing of sufficient "mitigating or extraordinary circumstances" meriting the relief (People v Vega, 73 AD3d 1218, 1219 [2010]; People v Barnes, 32 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]). Although defendant appears to have made a positive impression on the probation department and the District Court with respect to his recent history of avoidance of narcotics use and alcohol abuse, as well as his overall compliance with the terms of his prior sentence of probation, these circumstances alone do not justify this court's intervention to modify the sentence; rather, the continued term of probation, which has had a salutory effect on his capacity for law-abiding behavior, appears to be in defendant's best interests.

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Marano and Garguilo, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: July 24, 2014