NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department determined the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was separate and distinct from the shooting of the victim. Therefore the sentences for possession of a weapon and murder should not run consecutively:
… [T]he sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree should not run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the conviction of murder in the second degree. “No evidence was adduced at trial to establish that the defendant’s possession of a gun was separate and distinct from his shooting of the victim” … . People v Ross, 2018 NY Slip Op 05610, Second Dept 8-1-18
CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON (SENTENCING, NO EVIDENCE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND SHOOTING THE VICTIM WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, SENTENCES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT))