You are here: / / EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION...
,

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial evidence did not support consecutive sentences for criminal possession of a weapon and murder:

We agree with the defendant that the sentencing court could not lawfully direct that the sentence imposed upon one of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree run consecutive to the sentence imposed upon the conviction of murder in the second degree. As the defendant correctly contends, it is impossible, based on the indictment or the trial court’s charge, to determine whether the act that formed the basis of the jury’s verdict on the criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree counts was not the basis for its conviction on the murder in the second degree count. Therefore, the People have failed to meet their burden of proving the validity of consecutive sentences … . People v McClinton, 2020 NY Slip Op 00879, Second Department 2-5-20

 

You might also like
AS LONG AS PLAINTIFF TAKES SOME ACTION THAT WOULD LEAD TO ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND NINETY DAYS OF THE DEFAULT, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
BURDENS OF PROOF FOR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE EXPLAINED; CRITERIA FOR RAISING AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL EXPLAINED.
Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem
Petition to Commence Action Against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Should Not Have Been Denied In the Absence of a Hearing
Six-Year Delay in Raising Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Waived the Objection​
Building Owner Entitled to Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Based Upon Tracked In Water (Inclement Weather)–Tenant Ordinarily Does Not Have a Duty of Care Re: Common Areas
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT PLAINTIFF PLED GUILTY TO A TRAFFIC OFFENSE DOES NOT PROVE SHE WAS NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE PLED GUILTY BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO DRIVE FROM HER HOME FOR COURT APPEARANCES (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS MADE AWARE OF A JUROR’S... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS VOID PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY...