You are here: / / CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION,...
,

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION, NO ALLEGATION THE THREE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS WERE SEPARATE ACTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined consecutive sentences should not have been imposed for the three counts of criminal possession of a weapon to which defendant pled guilty. There were no allegations of three separate acts of possession:

Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, inter alia, “a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Conversely, consecutive sentences may be imposed when, among other things, “the facts demonstrate that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentencing … .

Here, no facts were alleged in the Superior Court Information or adduced at the defendant’s plea allocution which establish three separate acts of possession … . Accordingly, there was no basis for imposing consecutive sentences for three counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree … . People v Bailey, 2018 NY Slip Op 08674, Second Dept 12-19-18

SENTENCING

You might also like
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ABSENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT). ​
Passengers in Car Struck from Behind Entitled to Summary Judgment Despite Issue of Comparative Fault on the Part of the Driver of the Car in which They Were Passengers
Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which Was Inside a Vehicle
1941 AND 1953 DEEDS CREATED THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER WHICH COULD BE ASSIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Refusing to Provide Relevant Information to an Inmate Required Annulment of the Determination.
A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGES CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE DAMAGES WILL BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
New Trial Required Because State’s Experts Testified Based On Hearsay Not Demonstrated to Have Been Reliable

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INSURER WAIVED THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER IN THE... FATHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT...