Appellate court upholds Saugerties businessman’s sentence for rape

CATSKILL, N.Y. >> A Greene County Court judge’s decision to sentence a former Saugerties businessman to 20 years of post-release supervision on a felony rape charge has been upheld by a higher court.

In a decision handed down Thursday, justices with the Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Robert T. Bruno, 61, by Greene County Court Judge Terry J. Wilhelm.

Bruno had been charged with rape in the first degree and course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, both felonies, according to the decision. The charges stemmed from allegations that Bruno had sexual intercourse with the victim periodically over several years, beginning when the child was 12 years old.

Bruno formerly owned Bruno’s Pizza on U.S. Route 9W and Delicioso on Partition Street, according to Saugerties Police Chief Joseph Sinagra. Both businesses have closed.

After Bruno pleaded guilty to the felony rape charge and “purportedly waived his right to appeal,” he was sentenced on Sept. 11, 2020, by Wilhelm to five years in prison followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision, according to the decision.

In his appeal, Bruno argued that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, which the appellate justices concurred with, according to the decision. The judges concluded that Bruno did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to appeal because “the oral colloquy included language that suggested that the appeal waiver is an absolute bar to all appellate review.”

Bruno also argued the court’s imposition of a 20year period of post-release supervision was “harsh and excessive,” which the appellate judges disagreed with, according to the decision. The judges wrote that Bruno pleaded guilty with the understanding that although no particular amount of post-release supervision was made as part of a plea agreement, the prosecution planned to recommend a 20-year period.

“Considering the nature of the crime and the fact that defendant was sentenced to the minimum term of imprisonment allowed we do not find the imposition of the maximum period of PRS (postrelease supervision) to be ‘unduly harsh or severe,’” according to the decision.