Summary
finding consecutive sentences invalid when state failed to demonstrate separate or distinct acts
Summary of this case from Flores v. ErcoleOpinion
Argued December 16, 1980
Decided January 15, 1981
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, IVAN WARNER, J.
Barry M. Fallick for appellant.
Mario Merola, District Attorney (Harold Kenneth King, Jr., and Timothy J. McGinn of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to provide that the sentences for robbery and assault run concurrently and, as so modified, affirmed.
Defendant was arrested in connection with an incident in which the victim was first approached by two men at the door to her apartment. The victim was knocked unconscious by her assailants and awoke moments later to see defendant kneeling on top of her and choking her. At some time during the incident the assailants took money and keys from their victim. They then fled when neighbors were alerted by the commotion.
Defendant was convicted of both robbery in the first degree (Penal Law, § 160.15) and assault in the first degree (Penal Law, § 120.10, subd 3) and consecutive sentences were imposed. Inasmuch as the People are unable to point to any testimony or evidence which would support the view that the offenses of which defendant stands convicted involved disparate or separate acts, the sentences must run concurrently (Penal Law, § 70.25, subd 2).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.