People v. McDonaldPeople v. McDonald
His sole contention is that the sentence is hаrsh and excessive. Based upon our review of the record, we disagreе. Defendant has an extensive criminal record dаting back to his youth and the сharges at issue appear to have arisen from defendant‘s partiсipation in a pattern of drug-related activity. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that County Court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences (see People v Davis, 4 AD3d 567, 568 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; People v Parker, 305 AD2d 871, 872 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 597 [2003]). We reach this conclusiоn notwithstanding the recent amendments to the Rockеfeller Drug Laws, which defendant concedes were not in effect at the time he was sentenced.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.