Opinion
2015-02-11
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barrett L. ELLIOTT, Appellant.
Thomas F. Garner, Middleburgh, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Rita M. Basile of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas F. Garner, Middleburgh, for appellant. Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Rita M. Basile of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE and CLARK, JJ.
CLARK, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered February 9, 2011, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree.
Defendant was convicted in 2006, following a trial, of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 10 years. Upon appeal, this Court affirmed (57 A.D.3d 1095, 869 N.Y.S.2d 275 [2008], lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 783, 879 N.Y.S.2d 59, 906 N.E.2d 1093 [2009] ). In 2011, the sentencing court was notified by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision that the required period of postrelease supervision had not been imposed. County Court then resentenced defendant, imposing a period of five years of postrelease supervision in addition to defendant's original sentence of imprisonment. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. There is no support in the record for defendant's assertion that County Court was unaware that it had the discretion to impose a lesser term of postrelease supervision than five years ( cf. People v. Fuentes, 106 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 964 N.Y.S.2d 770 [2013]; People v. Whitmore, 103 A.D.3d 928, 929, 959 N.Y.S.2d 560 [2013] ). Moreover, “[g]iven the nature of the[ ] crimes and defendant's extensive criminal history, spanning over 25 years,” as well as his “squandered opportunities to address his alcohol problem,” which fueled these crimes, we reject again his request to reduce his sentence in the interest of justice (57 A.D.3d at 1097–1098, 869 N.Y.S.2d 275).
Defendant's remaining argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. McCARTHY, J.P., LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ., concur.