People v. Florentino

196 A.D.2d 881, 603 N.Y.S.2d 762
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 27, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 881 (People v. Florentino) 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
People v. Florentino, 196 A.D.2d 881, 603 N.Y.S.2d 762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.), both rendered March 26, 1991, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree under Indictment No. 2967/90, upon a jury verdict, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 12317/90, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 2967/90 is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction for robbery in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 12317/90 is affirmed.

As the People concede, and we agree, the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the third degree must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of robbery in the first degree (see, CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 64; People v Green, 56 NY2d 427, 430). However, the defendant’s contention that his conviction of robbery in the second degree should also be dismissed is without merit, since robbery in the second degree as defined in Penal Law § 160.10 (1) is not an inclusory concurrent count of robbery in the first degree as defined in Penal Law § 160.15 (3) (see, People v Mason, 128 AD2d 812, 813; People v Zada, 82 AD2d 926; see also, People v Acevedo, 40 NY2d 701, 706).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Wells
63 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Whitehurst
7 A.D.3d 738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Boyer
295 A.D.2d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Collins
249 A.D.2d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Sease
245 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Gethers
212 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 A.D.2d 881, 603 N.Y.S.2d 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-florentino-nyappdiv-1993.