Opinion
January 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant was sentenced under indictment No. 233/86 to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years in connection with his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant was also sentenced under that indictment to one year in prison for the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, to run concurrently with the sentence of 5 to 10 years. These crimes also constituted violations of the conditions of a term of probation which had been imposed upon the defendant's conviction of the crime of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 298/82. Consequently, the defendant was resentenced under that indictment to a consecutive indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. The sentences imposed by the court were clearly within statutory limits (see, Penal Law § 140.20, 220.39 Penal, 220.03 Penal, 70.06 Penal [3] [b]; [4] [b]; § 70.00 [2] [d]; [3] [b]; § 70.15 [1] [b]) and were not harsh or excessive.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his letter, which we have treated as a supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.