Opinion
Argued November 22, 1999
February 10, 2000
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered November 29, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of murder in the second degree, to run consecutively to concurrent indeterminate terms of 7 1/2 to 15 years imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and 3 1/2 to 7 years imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Karen M. Kalikow of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of murder in the second degree shall run concurrently with the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the defense counsel's performance in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 ; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 187 ; People v. Guzit, 262 A.D.2d 422 [2d Dept., June 7, 1999]).
We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court improperly directed that his sentence on the murder count run consecutively to, rather than concurrently with, the sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, as the murder and that weapon possession charge arose out of a single act (see, People v. Durio, 175 A.D.2d 842 ; cf., People v. Mack, 242 A.D.2d 543 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal.