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. Mark BLOUNT, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered December 7, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's objection to the court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) was preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). However, the Sandoval ruling was a provident exercise of the court's discretion (see People v. Andrews, 30 A.D.3d 434, 818 N.Y.S.2d 110; People v. Cruz, 21 A.D.3d 967, 801 N.Y.S.2d 65; People v. Nanton, 18 A.D.3d 671, 795 N.Y.S.2d 648).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not object to the remarks (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89). In any event, the challenged comments either were fair response to the defendant's summation (see People v. Small, 45 A.D.3d 705, 844 N.Y.S.2d 880; People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57), or, if improper, did not deprive him of a fair trial (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).
The defendant accomplished the first degree robberies through separate and distinct acts committed against four different individuals. While the statutory elements overlap, the commission of the robberies through separate and distinct acts permitted the imposition of consecutive sentences, even though those robberies were part of a single extended criminal transaction (see People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444, 654 N.Y.S.2d 998, 677 N.E.2d 722; see also People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640, 642 N.Y.S.2d 150, 664 N.E.2d 1212; People v. Smith, 46 A.D.3d 583, 845 N.Y.S.2d 914; People v. Stewartson, 25 A.D.3d 629, 808 N.Y.S.2d 725; People v. Summers, 20 A.D.3d 546, 799 N.Y.S.2d 534).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: January 22, 2008
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)