Opinion
2012-12-13
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Matthew J. MANLEY, Appellant.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), for respondent.
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant. Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered October 31, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree.
In an attempt to collect an unpaid debt for drugs that he sold, defendant entered the home of the individual who purchased the drugs and assaulted him. As a result, defendant was indicted and charged with burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree. In full satisfaction thereof, he thereafter pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree and entered a limited waiver of his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to 12 years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.
Defendant's sole contention is that his sentence is harsh and excessive—a claim that, under the particular facts of this case, is not encompassed by his otherwise valid waiver of the right to appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. Defendant exhibited violent behavior in breaking into a residence in the early morning hours and inflicting bodily harm to the individual who allegedly owed him money for drugs. Moreover, despite his young age, defendant has a lengthy criminal record, which includes two prior felony convictions. Furthermore, the sentence was on the low end of the parameters of the sentencing range that defendant consented to as part of the plea agreement. In view of the foregoing, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Conklin, 39 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 834 N.Y.S.2d 384 [2007],lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 841, 840 N.Y.S.2d 768, 872 N.E.2d 881 [2007];People v. Drew, 16 A.D.3d 840, 841, 792 N.Y.S.2d 639 [2005] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.