Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alexander SCREAHBEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J. on motion; Richard Lee Price, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered December 10, 2004, convicting defendant of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two consecutive terms of 12 1/212 years concurrent with two concurrent terms of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
The motion court properly granted the People's motion to consolidate the three indictments. The court properly permitted consolidation on the ground of overlapping evidence, pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(b). In all three knifepoint robberies, committed within a three-week period, defendant and one or two accomplices accosted lone young men on the same subway platform at the same time of night. While not identical, these highly similar incidents involved a sufficiently unique modus operandi so that the evidence of each was admissible as to the others (see People v. Beam, 57 N.Y.2d 241, 250-253, 455 N.Y.S.2d 575, 441 N.E.2d 1093 [1982] ).
The court also correctly determined that the robberies were properly joined as legally similar pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(c), and that defendant failed to make a sufficient showing for a discretionary severance pursuant to CPL 200.20(3). There was no material variance in the quantity of proof, the evidence was easily segregable in the minds of the jurors, and defendant failed to make a convincing showing that he had important testimony to give concerning some counts and a strong need to refrain from testifying as to others (see People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456 [1982]; People v. Streitferdt, 169 A.D.2d 171, 176, 572 N.Y.S.2d 893 [1991], lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 1015, 575 N.Y.S.2d 823, 581 N.E.2d 1069 [1991]; People v. Ndeye, 159 A.D.2d 397, 553 N.Y.S.2d 97 [1990], lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 793, 559 N.Y.S.2d 998, 559 N.E.2d 692 [1990] ).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: December 14, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)