People v. Prioleau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Prioleau

114 A.D.2d 302, 493 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52965

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 302 (People v. Prioleau) 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. Prioleau, 114 A.D.2d 302, 493 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Chananau, J.), rendered April 6, 1983, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment as a persistent violent felony offender, modified on the law to vacate the sentences imposed and the adjudication of defendant as a persistent violent felony offender and the matter remanded for resentence of defendant as a second violent felony offender, and, except as so modified, affirmed.

The two prior convictions on which the sentencing court predicated defendant’s adjudication as a persistent felony offender were convictions for which sentence was imposed the same day. As the prosecutor commendably concedes, these convictions may not be treated separately for purposes of enhanced punishment. As People v Morse (62 NY2d 205, 222) notes, "enhanced punishment may not be imposed * * * for [303]*303repeated criminality, but only for refusal to reform after sentence on a prior crime had been imposed”. Indeed, Penal Law § 70.10 (1) (c) expressly mandates that in determining whether a defendant is a persistent felony offender “two or more convictions of crimes that were committed prior to the time the defendant was imprisoned under sentence for any of such convictions shall be deemed to be only one conviction.” The failure to include a counterpart provision in Penal Law § 70.08, which deals with the sentencing of persistent violent felony offenders, was, as noted in Morse, merely legislative oversight.

Accordingly, we hold that defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender and that he must be resentenced as a second violent felony offender.

We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Asch, Bloom and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Chananau, J.), rendered April 6, 1983, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment as a persistent violent felony offender, modified on the law to vacate the sentences imposed and the adjudication of defendant as a persistent violent felony offender and the matter remanded for resentence of defendant as a second violent felony offender, and, except as so modified, affirmed.

The two prior convictions on which the sentencing court predicated defendant’s adjudication as a persistent felony offender were convictions for which sentence was imposed the same day. As the prosecutor commendably concedes, these convictions may not be treated separately for purposes of enhanced punishment. As People v Morse (62 NY2d 205, 222) notes, "enhanced punishment may not be imposed * * * for [303]*303repeated criminality, but only for refusal to reform after sentence on a prior crime had been imposed”. Indeed, Penal Law § 70.10 (1) (c) expressly mandates that in determining whether a defendant is a persistent felony offender “two or more convictions of crimes that were committed prior to the time the defendant was imprisoned under sentence for any of such convictions shall be deemed to be only one conviction.” The failure to include a counterpart provision in Penal Law § 70.08, which deals with the sentencing of persistent violent felony offenders, was, as noted in Morse, merely legislative oversight.

Accordingly, we hold that defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender and that he must be resentenced as a second violent felony offender.

We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Asch, Bloom and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 302, 493 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-prioleau-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack