From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 2001
289 A.D.2d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(1752) KA 01-00771

December 21, 2001.

(Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Violation of Probation.)

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, HURLBUTT, BURNS AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum:

As the People correctly concede, County Court erred in directing that the definite sentence of incarceration imposed on the violation of probation be consecutive to the indeterminate terms of incarceration imposed on the convictions of scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65 [b]) and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). The offense underlying the definite sentence was committed prior to the date on which the indeterminate sentences were imposed, and thus the sentences must run concurrently ( see, Penal Law § 70.35; People v. Graham, 255 A.D.2d 932, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 873). We therefore modify the judgment by providing that the definite sentence of incarceration shall run concurrently with the indeterminate sentences.


Summaries of

People v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 21, 2001
289 A.D.2d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Sutton

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STACEY A…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 21, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 1069 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
735 N.Y.S.2d 461

Citing Cases

People v. McQuiller

failing to specify that the determinate sentence imposed on the attempted robbery conviction was to run…