People v. Mainella

251 A.D.2d 1000, 675 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court violated Penal Law § 70.25 (2) and (3) by imposing consecutive sentences upon his conviction of two counts of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Defendant, however, was [1001] not charged with larcenies committed by a single act or omission, or during a single incident or transaction. Each offense was a separate crime committed at a discrete time by a distinct act (see, People v Day, 73 NY2d 208; People v Pinkard, 209 AD2d 1051; People v Levine, 188 AD2d 665, lv denied 82 NY2d 708). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.— Petit Larceny.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Mainella, 251 A.D.2d 1000, 675 N.Y.S.2d 580, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

251 A.D.2d 1000 (People v. Mainella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Day
535 N.E.2d 1325 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Levine
188 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Pinkard
209 A.D.2d 1051 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)