People v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Murray

37 A.D.3d 247, 829 N.Y.S.2d 106

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 247 (People v. Murray) 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. Murray, 37 A.D.3d 247, 829 N.Y.S.2d 106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), entered October 20, 2004, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to set aside his sentence, unanimously affirmed.

The procedure by which the sentencing court determined that defendant was eligible for consecutive sentences did not violate the principles of Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]). In imposing consecutive sentences for defendant’s convictions of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree and a concurrent sentence on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the court did not engage in any fact-finding, but instead made a legal determination based on facts already found by the jury (see People v Lloyd, 23 AD3d 296 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]; United States v White, 240 F3d 127 [2d Cir 2001], cert denied 540 US 857 [2003]; cf People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, J.), entered October 20, 2004, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to set aside his sentence, unanimously affirmed.

The procedure by which the sentencing court determined that defendant was eligible for consecutive sentences did not violate the principles of Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]). In imposing consecutive sentences for defendant’s convictions of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree and a concurrent sentence on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, the court did not engage in any fact-finding, but instead made a legal determination based on facts already found by the jury (see People v Lloyd, 23 AD3d 296 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [2005]; United States v White, 240 F3d 127 [2d Cir 2001], cert denied 540 US 857 [2003]; cf People v Parks, 95 NY2d 811 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 247, 829 N.Y.S.2d 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack