People v. Morten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Morten

68 A.D.3d 581, 889 N.Y.2d 848

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.3d 581 (People v. Morten) 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. Morten, 68 A.D.3d 581, 889 N.Y.2d 848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

The record establishes that the court and counsel were under the misapprehension that the court was required to impose a sentence for the bail jumping conviction that was consecutive to the sentences for both the weapon possession and robbery convictions. However, Penal Law § 70.25 (2-c) provides that consecutive sentences are mandated (absent a mitigation finding) only when the bail jumping charge relates to the crime for which the defendant jumped bail, and when the terms for both crimes are indeterminate. Here, the bail jumping sentence was not required to be consecutive on the robbery sentence for two reasons: first, defendant jumped bail only on the weapon charge, not the robbery charge, and second, the sentence for the robbery was not indeterminate, but was a determinate 12-year sentence. Since the court may not have apprehended the extent of its discretion, defendant is entitled to resentencing (see People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307 [1981]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, McGuire and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The record establishes that the court and counsel were under the misapprehension that the court was required to impose a sentence for the bail jumping conviction that was consecutive to the sentences for both the weapon possession and robbery convictions. However, Penal Law § 70.25 (2-c) provides that consecutive sentences are mandated (absent a mitigation finding) only when the bail jumping charge relates to the crime for which the defendant jumped bail, and when the terms for both crimes are indeterminate. Here, the bail jumping sentence was not required to be consecutive on the robbery sentence for two reasons: first, defendant jumped bail only on the weapon charge, not the robbery charge, and second, the sentence for the robbery was not indeterminate, but was a determinate 12-year sentence. Since the court may not have apprehended the extent of its discretion, defendant is entitled to resentencing (see People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307 [1981]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, McGuire and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 581, 889 N.Y.2d 848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morten-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack