You are here: / / CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED RE: CERTAIN WEAPONS-POSSESSION...

CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED RE: CERTAIN WEAPONS-POSSESSION COUNTS (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department concluded that the sentences on certain weapons-possession counts should not have been imposed consecutively:

The conviction on count 2 stemmed from defendant’s possession and intent to use an operable, loaded .357 caliber revolver in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and his conviction on count 3 was based upon his mere unlawful possession of that same firearm in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3), regardless of any intent to use the weapon. Insofar as defendant’s possession of the weapon was a material element of both weapon possession counts, was part of the same act resulting in the murder, and there was no evidence that defendant possessed the weapon with purposes unrelated to his intent to shoot the victim, the sentence imposed on count 3 is modified to run concurrently with the sentence imposed on count 2 … .

County Court also erred in running the sentences on counts 1 and 3 consecutively to one another. “[W]here a defendant is charged with criminal possession of a weapon pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), as well as a crime involving use of that weapon . . . consecutive sentencing” is allowed “so long as the defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon” … . Here, however, the People’s theory of the case, which the jury ultimately believed, was that defendant had already formed the specific intent to kill the victim when he procured the revolver … . People v Graham, 2023 NY Slip Op 01819, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here consecutive sentences should not have been imposed re: certain weapons-possession counts.

 

You might also like
APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS WHICH MUST BE ON DUTY DURING A SHIFT IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH IS ARBITRABLE PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT, NOT A JOB SECURITY ISSUE (WHICH IS NOT ARBITRABLE) (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Which Included Service by E-Mail and Text Message) Required Dismissal of the Petitions
“But For” Causation Element of Tortious Interference with Contract and Prospective Business Relationship Not Present—Notwithstanding the Actions of the Defendants, there Was Evidence the Contract Was Cancelled for Financial Reasons
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ACTION TO IMPOSE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND AN ACTION ALLEGING UNJUST ENRICHMENT EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
THE 1896 DEED FROM THE PLAINTIFF WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT DIOCESE WITH THE LIMITATION THAT IT BE USED AS A CHURCH CREATED A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER WHICH TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE PLAINTIFF WHEN THE PROPERTY STOPPED BEING USED AS A CHURCH IN 2015 (THIRD DEPT).
THE VIDEO DID NOT SUPPORT THE CREATING-A-DISTURBANCE CHARGE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER WAS NOT AWARE FINAL HEARING ON TERMINATION OF HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN SCHEDULED; HOLDING TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS IN HIS ABSENCE CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.

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

THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AFFECTED ONLY THE COUNTERCLAIMS, STRIKING THE ENTIRE... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SIGNED A RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY BEFORE ATTENDING...