Appeal from judgments of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Gaetan B. Lozito, J.), rendered July 18, 2011.
People v Andrade (Daniel)
Decided on April 12, 2013
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
PRESENT: NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, respectively.
ORDERED that the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Defendant was charged in separate felony complaints with criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 ) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 170.25). He agreed to a bargained-for plea disposition pursuant to which the felonies were reduced to the class A misdemeanors of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.05 ) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (Penal Law § 170.20), respectively, a sentence of concurrent terms of 10 months' incarceration would be imposed, and defendant would be released on his own recognizance pending sentencing so long as he was not rearrested, cooperated with the Probation Department and appeared as scheduled for sentencing. As a further term of the plea agreement, if defendant violated any of those conditions, he would be sentenced to two consecutive terms of one year's incarceration. Defendant admitted violating all three of those conditions and was sentenced to two consecutive one-year terms of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence was excessive.
As a general rule, a defendant who has been sentenced according to the terms of a bargained-for plea and sentencing agreement will not be heard to complain that the sentence was unduly harsh or excessive (People v Galvez, 72 AD3d 838 ; People v Ubiles, 59 AD3d 572 ; People v Grigg, 53 AD3d 629, 630 ). Under the circumstances presented, we find no basis to deviate from that rule.
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.