ROSE
Kathryn M. Barber, Albany, for appellant, and appellant pro se. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher J. Torelli of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, LAHTINEN and GARRY, JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered June 7, 2010, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In 2004, defendant was convicted after a trial of, among other things, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 12 1/2 to 25 years. His conviction was thereafter affirmed on appeal (People v. Howard, 21 A.D.3d 585, 799 N.Y.S.2d 833 [2005],lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 853, 806 N.Y.S.2d 173, 840 N.E.2d 142 [2005] ). Subsequently, defendant applied for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 and, ultimately, in the course of an appearance before County Court, defendant agreed that the original sentence for these crimes would be vacated and the court would resentence him to 9 1/2 years in prison to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, principally arguing that his resentence is harsh and excessive. We disagree. “Given, among other things, defendant's lengthy criminal record, we find no basis to conclude that the court abused its discretion, nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice” ( People v. Carter, 97 A.D.3d 852, 852, 947 N.Y.S.2d 346 [2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 1024, 953 N.Y.S.2d 557, 978 N.E.2d 109 [2012] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]; see People v. Reid, 85 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 924 N.Y.S.2d 857 [2011] ).
Finally, inasmuch as the contentions in defendant's pro se brief raise matters outside the subject record, they are not properly addressed herein.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN and GARRY, JJ., concur.