WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE TWO POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CHARGES RELATED TO DISTINCT EVENTS, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing the convictions and vacating the sentences, determined there was no evidence the two possession-of-a-weapon charges were based upon distinct events. Therefore consecutive sentences should not have been imposed:
County Court should not have imposed consecutive sentences upon the defendant’s conviction of the two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, among other things, “a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Here, there was no showing that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes were separate and distinct and consequently, consecutive sentences could not be imposed (see Penal Law § 70.25[2 … ).
Under the particular circumstances of this case, we reverse the judgments of convictions, vacate the sentences imposed thereon, and remit the matters … for further proceedings, at which the People should be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent to the plea agreement, should they be so advised … . People v Adams, 2021 NY Slip Op 02808, Second Dept 5-5-21