Opinion
November 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.).
Contrary to defendant's contention, we find that the consecutive sentences imposed herein were not violative of Penal Law § 70.25 (2), since they resulted from a plea negotiation in which defendant admitted to two distinct and separate crimes. The plea to manslaughter was entered under the intentional murder count, not dependent upon or related to the robbery.
Further, the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's requests for an interpreter (People v. Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460) and for new counsel (People v. Johnson, 188 A.D.2d 405), since the record of the plea and sentence proceedings, which were conducted in the English language, unequivocally indicates that defendant understood them, and that he received the services of competent counsel.
Finally, in view of the coldblooded slaying of the victim by defendant and an accomplice, as well as defendant's prior criminal record, we do not find the sentence to be excessive.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.