PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2007)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of three counts of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate (Penal Law § 240.32).   We previously held this case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to County Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial at the time of his trial (People v. Williams, 19 A.D.3d 1121, 798 N.Y.S.2d 811).   Contrary to defendant's contention, “[t]he record supports the court's determination following the reconstruction hearing that the People sustained their burden of demonstrating by a fair preponderance of the evidence defendant's competence to stand trial” (People v. Marasa, 284 A.D.2d 971, 971, 726 N.Y.S.2d 899, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 940, 733 N.Y.S.2d 380, 759 N.E.2d 379).   Defendant's further contention that the prosecutor improperly sought a sealed indictment is unpreserved for our review and, in any event, is lacking in merit (see People v. Burkett, 12 A.D.3d 1196, 784 N.Y.S.2d 433, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 762, 792 N.Y.S.2d 5, 825 N.E.2d 137).   Finally, consecutive sentences were authorized because the three offenses were committed through separate and distinct acts (see People v. Bryant, 92 N.Y.2d 216, 230-231, 677 N.Y.S.2d 286, 699 N.E.2d 910;  cf. People v. Mack, 273 A.D.2d 939, 711 N.Y.S.2d 806, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 966, 722 N.Y.S.2d 483, 745 N.E.2d 404), and the imposition of consecutive terms did not render the sentence unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: