Opinion
2021-03748
06-11-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. JONATHAN ROSSBOROUGH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HAYDEN DADD, CONFLICT DEFENDER, GENESEO (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
HAYDEN DADD, CONFLICT DEFENDER, GENESEO (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Jennifer M. Noto, J.), rendered February 20, 2020. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of forgery in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred when it refused his request, made for the first time at sentencing, for a sentence of parole supervision pursuant to CPL 410.91. We reject that contention. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was eligible for such a sentence, we conclude that defendant received the sentence promised by the court at the plea proceedings and, under the circumstances of this case, the court did not err in concluding that parole supervision pursuant to CPL 410.91 would not be appropriate (see People v Johnson, 137 A.D.3d 1419, 1420 [3d Dept 2016]; People v Patterson, 119 A.D.3d 1157, 1158 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1046 [2014]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the agreed-upon sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.