You are here: / / SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF TWO DRUGS IN THE SAME TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE...
,

SENTENCES FOR THE SALE OF TWO DRUGS IN THE SAME TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONCURRENTLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the sentences for two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance should run concurrently because they were committed during a single transaction:

… [T]he People failed to prove that defendant committed two separate and distinct acts. Counts 1 and 2 were for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — one for each drug; thus, the actus reus elements are the same … . The record reveals that the CI made arrangements for one sale to take place and defendant engaged in a single transaction — one sale of two controlled substances. The sale occurred in defendant’s vehicle where there was an exchange of money for one bag of drugs, containing two smaller bags of drugs. As the offenses were committed through one single distinct act, the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 2 should run concurrently … . People v Muniz, 2021 NY Slip Op 02023, Third Dept 4-1-21

 

You might also like
Petitioner Denied Right to Assistance of Counsel—Dismissal and Expungement Ordered
FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRANSCRIPT OF LINCOLN HEARING.
Zoning Board’s Interpretation of Village Ordinances Upheld—Keeping of Chickens Is Not an Allowed “Residential Use”
ALTHOUGH, ON A PRIOR APPEAL, THE APPEALS COURT FOUND THAT AN OFFER OF PROOF OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS WAS INADEQUATE, AT THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLAINTIFF’S OFFER OF EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ACCIDENTS, THE APPELLATE RULING WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE (THIRD DEPT).
FINDING THAT CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING LIGHT WORK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER SLIPPED ON WATER FROM A LEAKING WATER COOLER, THE HEARING OFFICER RULED THE INCIDENT WAS NOT A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS READILY OBSERVABLE, THE COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HELD A PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE A CONDITION WAS NOT READILY OBSERVABLE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​
In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

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

FATHER’S EXCUSE FOR NOT APPEARING (HE OVERSLEPT) WAS REASONABLE UNDER... THE 2009 AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW ALLOWED LUMP SUM...