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, etc., respondent, v. Patrick WILLIAMS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered December 9, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of six years for burglary in the second degree, two to four years for criminal contempt in the first degree, six years for attempted burglary in the first degree, and one year for reckless endangerment in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years imprisonment for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, to run concurrently with the other sentences.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof providing that the terms of imprisonment imposed for criminal contempt in the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree are to run consecutively to each other and substituting therefor a provision providing that those terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
As the People correctly concede, since the act underlying the convictions for attempted burglary in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, and reckless endangerment in the second degree was the single act of using a firearm, the terms of imprisonment imposed for those crimes should be modified to run concurrently with each other (see, Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640, 643, 642 N.Y.S.2d 150, 664 N.E.2d 1212; People v. Darvie, 224 A.D.2d 442, 443, 637 N.Y.S.2d 762).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 360, 547 N.Y.S.2d 620, 546 N.E.2d 913; People v. Chrysler, 85 N.Y.2d 413, 416, 626 N.Y.S.2d 18, 649 N.E.2d 1162).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 03, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)