People v. McKinneyPeople v. McKinney
Defendant‘s sole contention on appeal is that the five-year term of probation is harsh and excessive and should be reduced to three years in the interest of justice. We do not agree. “A sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification” (People v Ramos, 133 AD3d 904, 908 [2015] [internal quotations marks and citations omitted], lv denied 26 NY3d 1149 [2016]; People v Simmons, 122 AD3d 1169, 1169 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1171 [2015]). Given defendant‘s prior criminal history, within both California and this state, and the fact that the term of probation was the length negotiated by the parties and that defendant was already on probation when he committed the instant offense, we discern no extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion that would warrant modification of the sentence (see
McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.