Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Morten

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


December 17, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
TONY MORTEN, ETC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stephen L. Barrett, J.), rendered September 3, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 years for the robbery conviction and 7 years for the weapon conviction, consecutive to a term of 11/2 to 3 years for the bail jumping conviction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, McGuire, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

3181/06, 3081/07 & 2797/07

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]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20091217

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.