You are here: / / HERE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT INDICATE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS...
, ,

HERE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT INDICATE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS WERE ENCOMPASSED BY COUNTS 2 AND 3; THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THOSE COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s consecutive sentences, determined there was no evidence the counts to which defendant pled guilty involved two separate and distinct acts:

Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where, inter alia, “a single act constitutes two offenses” … . Thus, in order for a consecutive sentence to be legally imposed, the People have the burden of demonstrating by “identifiable facts . . . that the defendant’s acts underlying the crimes are separate and distinct” … . Where, as here, the defendant is “convicted upon a plea to a lesser offense than that charged in the indictment, the People may rely only on those facts and circumstances admitted during the plea allocution” in order to meet that burden … .

Here, no facts were adduced at defendant’s plea allocution that would establish two separate and distinct acts causing injury to the victims named in counts 2 and 3, and thus there was no basis for imposing consecutive sentences for those counts … . People v Wright, 2024 NY Slip Op 03613, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: To impose consecutive sentences based upon a guilty plea, the plea allocution must demonstrate the counts encompass separate and distinct acts.​

 

You might also like
Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent Light-Duty Assignment
THE JUDGE IN THIS AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT ABSENT A WRITTEN MOTION OR A WAIVER BY THE PEOPLE; THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE INTENT DUE TO MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT; ONLY A JURY CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE ENTERED HOME ILLEGALLY AND OBTAINED CONSENT TO SEARCH BY MISLEADING THE OCCUPANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS FRAUD ACTION, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS WERE MADE IN ERIE COUNTY; THEREFORE THE PLACE OF DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE, NEW YORK COUNTY, WAS PROPERLY DESIGNATED THE VENUE FOR THE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT).
AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEGUN AND WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED, THE JUDGE BECAME ILL AND SOUGHT A COVID TEST; AFTER THE NEGATIVE TEST-RESULT, THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSENT, DECLARED A MISTRIAL; THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER A CONTINUANCE OR THE SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION PRECLUDED RETRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT DROVE ON THE RIGHT SHOULDER TO GO AROUND A VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNING AND THEN SUDDENLY CROSSED THE DOUBLE LINE AND STRUCK A MOTORCYCLIST IN THE ONCOMING LANE; THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE “RECKLESS” CONDUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANSLAUGHTER STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH 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

A TEACHER’S ALLEGED STATEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE... THE WARRANT AUTHORIZING THE SEARCH OF THE CONTENTS OF DEFENDANT’S CELL...