Opinion
No. 2019-06405 Ind. No. 18-00426
11-24-2021
The People, etc., respondent, v. Franiqua Patterson, appellant.
Geoffrey E. Chanin, Goshen, NY, for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Submitted - October 28, 2021
Geoffrey E. Chanin, Goshen, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS WILLIAM G. FORD DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Craig Stephen Brown, J.), rendered January 31, 2019, convicting her of sex trafficking (two counts), upon her plea of guilty, and sentencing her to two concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 12 years, to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from two concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 12 years, to be followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision, to two concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 12 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the imposition of an enhanced sentence is unpreserved for appellate review, since she withdrew her motion to vacate the plea on this ground and did not otherwise object to the imposition of the enhanced sentence (see People v Andre, 168 A.D.3d 757, 757; People v Martin, 151 A.D.3d 753, 753). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the County Court was not bound by the original plea agreement, and had the right to impose an enhanced sentence (see People v Hicks, 98 N.Y.2d 185; People v Diaz, 146 A.D.3d 803, 805; People v Harris, 142 A.D.3d 557, 558).
Even though the County Court had the right to impose an enhanced sentence, this Court has "broad, plenary power to modify an enhanced sentence that is harsh or excessive under the circumstances" (People v Diaz, 146 A.D.3d at 805; see CPL 470.15[6][b]; People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780, 783). Here, we find that the court's imposition of an enhanced sentence of 20 years of postrelease supervision on each count rendered the sentence imposed excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Accordingly, we modify the sentence to reduce the period of postrelease supervision on each count to 5 years as was promised in the original plea agreement.
RIVERA, J. P, CHAMBERS, FORD and DOWLING, JJ, concur