Opinion
13382
September 19, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (La Buda, J.), rendered January 22, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
Peter B. Meadow, Woodbourne, for appellant.
Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, waiving his right to appeal, and was sentenced to a prison term of five years to life. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the sentence imposed by County Court is harsh and excessive and should, accordingly, be modified by this Court.
As defendant waived his right to appeal as part of a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see People v. Jimenez, 267 A.D.2d 615, 616, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 921). Were we to reach it, however, we would find no evidence that it represents an abuse of judicial discretion nor are there any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Mares, 256 A.D.2d 716, 717, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 927) . The record discloses that defendant was suspected as a major drug dealer in Sullivan County, which led to his investigation and arrest by officers from the Drug Enforcement Agency. At the time of his arrest, defendant was in possession of a substantial quantity of drugs, including four pounds of marijuana and 600 tablets of the drug known as ecstasy, which he had admittedly obtained in New York City for resale upstate. Defendant argues that his previously clean criminal record warrants a reduction in sentence; however, given the gravity of the offense of which defendant stands convicted and his undisputed guilt thereof, the sentence will not be disturbed (see People v. Etheridge, 233 A.D.2d 626, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 921).
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.