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. Todd M. BRUNELLE, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered August 22, 2006, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree with the understanding that County Court would sentence him to 10 years of probation supervision. At the time of sentencing, however, the court informed defendant that it would not go forward with the agreed-upon sentence based upon information contained in the presentence investigation report. Instead, the court advised that it would either sentence defendant to 1 to 3 years in prison or allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. The matter was adjourned in order to give defendant time to consider his options. Defendant ultimately declined the opportunity to withdraw his plea and was sentenced as indicated by County Court to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. Noting that County Court retained the discretion to impose an appropriate sentence up until the time of sentencing (see People v. Yanus, 13 A.D.3d 804, 805, 786 N.Y.S.2d 264 [2004]; People v. Hill, 253 A.D.2d 942, 942, 680 N.Y.S.2d 119 [1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 874, 689 N.Y.S.2d 436, 711 N.E.2d 650 [1999] ), we reject defendant's assertion that the court erred in failing to abide by the 10-year probation sentence which was originally contemplated. The court sufficiently articulated its reasons on the record for departing from the original sentence and, in any event, afforded defendant all of the relief to which he was entitled by offering him the chance to withdraw his guilty plea prior to fixing sentence (see People v. Yanus, 13 A.D.3d at 805, 786 N.Y.S.2d 264). Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been considered and found to be unavailing.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: January 17, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)