People v. Holman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holman

117 A.D.2d 534, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52814

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 534 (People v. Holman) 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. Holman, 117 A.D.2d 534, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52814 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley L. Sklar, J.), rendered January 20, 1984, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16) (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) (two counts), and sentenced him, as a predicate felon, to indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from AVz to 9 years on the counts of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and to a determinate term of one year on each one of the counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, with all of these sentences to run concurrently, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating defendant’s conviction of the two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and dismissing those counts, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree as well as criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees. Our examination of the record indicates that the indictment, which contains counts of criminal sale in the third degree and criminal possession in the third and seventh degrees, clearly pertains to the charges that resulted from the defendant’s arrest for selling heroin to an undercover police officer and his possession of narcotics concomitant with that sale. Therefore, we find that "[i]n that context, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree was an inclusory concurrent offense which, under the circumstances, should have been dismissed pursuant to CPL 300.40 (subd 3, par [b])” (People v Evans, 70 AD2d 816, 817 [1st Dept 1979]; People v Mendoza, 110 AD2d 570 [1st Dept 1985]). We note in passing that the People concede that this error was committed. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to dismiss the two counts of criminal possession in the seventh degree.

We have examined the other points raised by the defendant, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley L. Sklar, J.), rendered January 20, 1984, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16) (two counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03) (two counts), and sentenced him, as a predicate felon, to indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from AVz to 9 years on the counts of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and to a determinate term of one year on each one of the counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, with all of these sentences to run concurrently, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating defendant’s conviction of the two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and dismissing those counts, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree as well as criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and seventh degrees. Our examination of the record indicates that the indictment, which contains counts of criminal sale in the third degree and criminal possession in the third and seventh degrees, clearly pertains to the charges that resulted from the defendant’s arrest for selling heroin to an undercover police officer and his possession of narcotics concomitant with that sale. Therefore, we find that "[i]n that context, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree was an inclusory concurrent offense which, under the circumstances, should have been dismissed pursuant to CPL 300.40 (subd 3, par [b])” (People v Evans, 70 AD2d 816, 817 [1st Dept 1979]; People v Mendoza, 110 AD2d 570 [1st Dept 1985]). We note in passing that the People concede that this error was committed. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to dismiss the two counts of criminal possession in the seventh degree.

We have examined the other points raised by the defendant, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 534, 499 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holman-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack