People v. Racks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Racks

221 A.D.2d 664, 635 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12412

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 664 (People v. Racks) 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. Racks, 221 A.D.2d 664, 635 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County [665]*665(Martin, J.), rendered February 7, 1994, as amended February 9, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7½ to 15 years for his convictions of robbery in the second degree, a concurrent term of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and a consecutive term of imprisonment of 2½ to 5 years for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is modified, on the law, to the extent that all of the sentences shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to be present at the proceeding at which he was found competent to stand trial. The defendant had no right to be present since there was no hearing and no significant factual inquiry (see, People v Williams, 85 NY2d 945, 947).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is also without merit. The record demonstrates that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We find, however, that the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was improper pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2). The record reveals that both of the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon were part of a single, continuous act (see, People v Sessoms, 200 AD2d 850; People v Bolus, 185 AD2d 1007; People v Riley-James, 168 AD2d 740). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County [665]*665(Martin, J.), rendered February 7, 1994, as amended February 9, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7½ to 15 years for his convictions of robbery in the second degree, a concurrent term of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and a consecutive term of imprisonment of 2½ to 5 years for his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is modified, on the law, to the extent that all of the sentences shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was denied his right to be present at the proceeding at which he was found competent to stand trial. The defendant had no right to be present since there was no hearing and no significant factual inquiry (see, People v Williams, 85 NY2d 945, 947).

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is also without merit. The record demonstrates that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

We find, however, that the imposition of a consecutive sentence for the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was improper pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2). The record reveals that both of the defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a weapon were part of a single, continuous act (see, People v Sessoms, 200 AD2d 850; People v Bolus, 185 AD2d 1007; People v Riley-James, 168 AD2d 740). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 664, 635 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-racks-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack