 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Parker2/7/2003
t be bound by its sentencing commitment if defendant were arrested between the time of his plea and sentencing. Sentencing in that case was scheduled for two weeks after the shooting herein occurred. Thus, the plea transcript was admissible on the issue of defendant's motive for shooting at the officers, and the court minimized any prejudice to defendant by instructing the jury that the plea transcript was to be considered only with respect to that issue (see People v McMurray, 271 AD2d 460; People v Robinson, 200 AD2d 693, 693-694, lv denied 84 NY2d 831).
(*13) Contrary to defendant's contention, the sentence is clearly specified. First, defendant must complete any sentence he is serving in connection with prior crimes. Then, he must serve the sentence for attempted murder (count three), and the sentences for aggravated assault (count five), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (count seven), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (count eight) are to run concurrently with that sentence. When those sentences are completed, defendant will begin serving the sentence for murder (count one).
We conclude, however, that there is a technical error in defendant's sentences that requires modification. The court directed that the sentence imposed on count seven run concurrently only with the sentence imposed on count three, and not count one. The People's bill of particulars, however, recites that defendant fired his weapon at both officers, killing one and wounding the other. Therefore, the sentence imposed on count seven should run concurrently with the sentences imposed on both counts one and three.
VI. Conclusion
Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment should be modified by directing that the sentence imposed on count seven shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on count one and as so modified affirmed.
|