From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 1980
73 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

January 28, 1980


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 20, 1977, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Since the jury found the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, the trial court should have dismissed the third count of the indictment charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree since the latter is an inclusory concurrent count of the former (see People v. Robinson, 45 N.Y.2d 448). Concerning the defendant's request that we modify his sentence, we note that such application must be made to Criminal Term (see Penal Law, § 60.09; People v. Rivera, 72 A.D.2d 610; People v. Oliver, 73 A.D.2d 653). We have considered the other contentions raised by the defendant and have found them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bowe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 1980
73 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

People v. Bowe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT VINCENT BOWE…

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

Date published: Jan 28, 1980

Citations

73 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

People v. Weaver

the defendant's argument that the crime of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fifth Degree…

In the Matter of Daverus McQ

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied that branch of the appellant's omnibus motion which was to…