MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the second degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a determinate prison term of six years. Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed by County Court was harsh and excessive because it includes a five-year period of postrelease supervision mandated by Penal Law § 70.45. In view of the nature of defendant's crime and her extensive criminal history, however, we are not persuaded that there was an abuse of judicial discretion in the sentence imposed, including the period of postrelease supervision, nor are there any extraordinary circumstances which would warrant modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see, People v. Thomas, 272 A.D.2d 985).
Defendant further contends that the period of postrelease supervision was not mentioned to her when she agreed to the plea bargain; hence, she is entitled to specific performance of the agreement as she understood it, by excusing her from serving the period of postrelease supervision. This assertion is without merit as imposition of a determinate sentence without a provision for postrelease supervision would violate the requirements of Penal Law § 70.45, rendering it illegal. Defendant might be entitled to have the sentence vacated in order to afford her the opportunity of withdrawing her plea (see, People v. Martin, 278 A.D.2d 743); however, she seeks only to modify the sentence by eliminating any period of postrelease supervision. Under these circumstances, the judgment must be affirmed (see, People v. Yekel, 288 A.D.2d 762, 733 N.Y.S.2d 643).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.