DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations is no indication that the defendant was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial (see, People v. Lam, 226 A.D.2d 554, 555; People v. Goolsby, 213 A.D.2d 722; People v. Cosme, 203 A.D.2d 375; People v. Clarke, 195 A.D.2d 569, 570-571). It is to be anticipated that sentences imposed after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea (see, People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 412, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087; People v. Velez, 222 A.D.2d 539, 541; People v. Street, 220 A.D.2d 704, 705; People v. Rosemond, 226 A.D.2d 404; People v. Patterson, 106 A.D.2d 520, 521).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his current medical condition does not, by itself, warrant the reduction of an otherwise appropriate sentence (see, People v. King, 184 A.D.2d 782;People v. Bonaventura, 168 A.D.2d 626; People v. Chrzanowski, 147 A.D.2d 652). The defendant failed to establish that he would be unable to obtain proper medical treatment if incarcerated (see,People v. Clark, 176 A.D.2d 1206).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, LUCIANO, and SMITH, JJ., concur.