From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harrell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 2, 2012
92 A.D.3d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-02-2

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rodney R. HARRELL, Appellant.

Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Mari Ann Connolly Sennett of counsel), for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.


Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Mari Ann Connolly Sennett of counsel), for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams Jr., J.), rendered May 28, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the third degree.

As a result of his participation in an early morning home invasion, defendant was charged in an indictment with robbery in the second degree and burglary in the second degree. In satisfaction thereof, he pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to the maximum of 2 1/3 to 7 years in prison. Defendant was sentenced accordingly and he now appeals.

Defendant's sole contention is that his sentence is harsh and excessive. Upon our review of the record, we disagree. The circumstances of the home invasion reveal that defendant awoke the victim by knocking on the door of his home and, when defendant was told that the victim's daughter was not at home, he forced his way inside and demanded money. Defendant then threatened to harm the victim and his daughter unless the victim gave him money, which the victim proceeded to do after driving to an ATM. Defendant's intimidating behavior, together with his violent criminal history and agreement to the sentence imposed as part of the plea bargain, lead us to conclude that the sentence was appropriate. In sum, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Rychel, 284 A.D.2d 662, 663, 728 N.Y.S.2d 211 [2001]; see also People v. Williams, 231 A.D.2d 761, 647 N.Y.S.2d 53 [1996] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Harrell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 2, 2012
92 A.D.3d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

People v. Harrell

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rodney R. HARRELL…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 2, 2012

Citations

92 A.D.3d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
937 N.Y.S.2d 469
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 665

Citing Cases

People v. Destouche

Turning to the merits, defendant's contention that the plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent is…