People v. Pritchett

29 A.D.3d 828, 814 N.Y.S.2d 281
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 16, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 828 (People v. Pritchett) 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. Pritchett, 29 A.D.3d 828, 814 N.Y.S.2d 281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered December 18, 2003, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree (four counts), aggravated assault upon a police officer (two counts), and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly imposed consecutive sentences on three of the defendant’s attempted murder convictions because the offenses were separate and distinct acts, notwithstanding that they occurred in the course of a continuous incident (see People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643 [1996]; People v Lloyd, 23 AD3d 296, 297-298 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 755 [829]*829[2005]; cf. Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). The defendant’s claim that the procedure by which the Supreme Court determined that he was eligible for consecutive sentences violated the principles of Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v Lloyd, supra at 298; United States v White, 240 F3d 127, 135 [2d Cir 2001], cert denied sub nom. Cruz v United States, 540 US 857 [2003]). The Supreme 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, supra at 298).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Bryant
2024 NY Slip Op 01194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People v. Mannino
89 A.D.3d 1105 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Bridges
63 A.D.3d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Marte
52 A.D.3d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Cruz
46 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Flores
46 A.D.3d 570 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Azaz
41 A.D.3d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Grady
40 A.D.3d 1368 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. McBride
40 A.D.3d 780 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.3d 828, 814 N.Y.S.2d 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pritchett-nyappdiv-2006.