Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. RAYMOND BRYANT, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to Monroe County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[4] ), as a lesser included offense of the second count of the indictment and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30[3] ). He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement providing that he would be sentenced as a second felony offender to a determinate term of nine years' incarceration with seven years' postrelease supervision on the rape conviction, and lesser concurrent terms of incarceration and postrelease supervision on the burglary conviction. County Court imposed the promised sentence, and defendant appeals.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. The term of postrelease supervision imposed on the rape charge in appeal No. 1 is illegal, however, because the minimum period of postrelease supervision on that charge is 10 years where, as here, defendant has a prior nonviolent felony conviction (see Penal Law §§ 70.45[2–a][i]; 70.80[9] ). “It is well established that an invalid sentence cannot be allowed to stand” (People v. Swan, 158 A.D.2d 158, 163, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 991; see People v. Barber, 31 AD3d 1145, 1145–1146). Thus, “[b]ecause neither the sentence pursuant to the plea agreement nor the sentence actually imposed was authorized by law for the crime of which defendant was convicted,” we modify the judgment in appeal No. 1 by vacating the sentence and we remit the matter to County Court “for resentencing with the opportunity for both parties to withdraw from the plea agreement” (People v. Cameron, 83 N.Y.2d 838, 840; see People v. Ignatowski, 70 AD3d 1472, 1473; People v. Martin, 278 A.D.2d 743, 744). Because defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea to the rape conviction, the judgment in appeal No. 2 is modified by vacating the sentence imposed on the burglary conviction, and the matter is remitted to County Court for resentencing, and to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea to that charge if he withdraws his plea to the rape conviction (see generally People v. Hendrix, 2 AD3d 1479, 1479–1480).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 10–02190
Decided: May 09, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)