Opinion
November 9, 1995
Appeal from the County Court of Montgomery County (Aison, J.).
In September 1993, defendant was indicted and charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree for selling cocaine to undercover law enforcement agents on two separate occasions. Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of controlled substance in the third degree. Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to 5 to 10 years in prison and this appeal ensued.
Initially, insofar as the record discloses that defendant entered into a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal in connection with the plea agreement ( see, People v Muniz, 215 A.D.2d 881, 883), we find no merit to defendant's contention that this waiver should be given no effect. In any event, although defendant now challenges the restitution ordered to reimburse funds expended in the "buy and bust" operation leading to his conviction, we note that defendant expressly agreed to this amount ( see, People v Serafini, 213 A.D.2d 1066, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 980). Further, we find no reason to conclude that the subject order of restitution pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27 (9) was illegal simply because it was the District Attorney's office that originally provided the funds that were expended by the law enforcement personnel involved in the undercover operation. In our view the legislative purpose of "prevent[ing] convicted narcotics offenders from reaping a windfall" (Mem of Senate Sponsor, L 1991, ch 545, 1991 N.Y. Legis Ann, at 300) was fulfilled in this case. Finally, we have examined defendant's claim that his negotiated sentence is harsh and excessive and find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court ( see, People v Martin, 215 A.D.2d 942, 942-943).
Mercure, J.P., White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.