Mingo v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mingo v. Annucci

49 A.D.3d 1106, 853 N.Y.2d 739

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 27, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1106 (Mingo v. Annucci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mingo v. Annucci, 49 A.D.3d 1106, 853 N.Y.2d 739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In 1983, petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison on each of four counts of murder in the second degree, I2V2 to 25 years for robbery in the first degree, I2V2 to 25 years for burglary in the first degree and 21k to 7 years for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Two of the sentences for the murder convictions were set to run consecutively, with all other sentences running concurrently, for an aggregate prison term of 50 years to life. After exhausting his administrative remedies, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging his sentence, arguing that, since a person has only one life, consecutive life sentences can be served only concurrently and, as such, the minimum period should be recalculated to run concurrently as well. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, there is no provision of the Penal Law that prohibits the imposition of consecutive life sentences (see e.g. Matter of Roballo v Smith, 63 NY2d 485 [1984]). The Department of Correctional Services properly calculated petitioner’s sentence pursuant to Penal Law former § 70.30, as it read at the time of petitioner’s sentencing. Pursuant to that provision, when sentences are set to run consecutively, the minimum periods are added to arrive at the aggregate minimum—which, here, is 50 years—and the maximum [1107]*1107periods are added to arrive at the aggregate maximum—which, here, is life (see Penal Law former § 70.30 [1] [b]).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In 1983, petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison on each of four counts of murder in the second degree, I2V2 to 25 years for robbery in the first degree, I2V2 to 25 years for burglary in the first degree and 21k to 7 years for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Two of the sentences for the murder convictions were set to run consecutively, with all other sentences running concurrently, for an aggregate prison term of 50 years to life. After exhausting his administrative remedies, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging his sentence, arguing that, since a person has only one life, consecutive life sentences can be served only concurrently and, as such, the minimum period should be recalculated to run concurrently as well. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, there is no provision of the Penal Law that prohibits the imposition of consecutive life sentences (see e.g. Matter of Roballo v Smith, 63 NY2d 485 [1984]). The Department of Correctional Services properly calculated petitioner’s sentence pursuant to Penal Law former § 70.30, as it read at the time of petitioner’s sentencing. Pursuant to that provision, when sentences are set to run consecutively, the minimum periods are added to arrive at the aggregate minimum—which, here, is 50 years—and the maximum [1107]*1107periods are added to arrive at the aggregate maximum—which, here, is life (see Penal Law former § 70.30 [1] [b]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1106, 853 N.Y.2d 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mingo-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack