From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hladky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1996
229 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

July 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In its report, the Supreme Court stated that the defendant's sentence for burglary in the second degree under count eleven of the indictment, and his sentence for robbery in the second degree under count thirteen of the indictment, were to run consecutively to each other and to the consecutive sentences imposed upon the defendant's convictions of intentional murder (two counts). The record demonstrates that the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper. The intentional murders were separate and distinct from the burglary and robbery offenses, although they were part of a continuous course of conduct ( see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839, 843). Therefore, the sentences imposed for burglary in the second degree under count eleven of the indictment and robbery in the second degree under count thirteen of the indictment could lawfully run consecutively to the consecutive sentences imposed for intentional murder, notwithstanding the fact that counts eleven and thirteen of the indictment served as predicate felonies for the defendant's conviction of four counts of felony murder ( see, People v. Nathan, 224 A.D.2d 640; People v. Mebert, 194 A.D.2d 809; People v. Hunt, 174 A.D.2d 980; People v. Bailey, 167 A.D.2d 951; People Hildreth, 148 A.D.2d 879; People v Ferkins, 116 A.D.2d 760; see also, People v. Adams, 163 A.D.2d 881). Likewise, under the facts of this case, the conduct constituting the burglary under count eleven was separate and distinct from the conduct constituting the robbery under count thirteen. Accordingly, the imposition of consecutive sentences for burglary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree was lawful ( see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v Beverly, 220 A.D.2d 881; People v. Dorsey, 79 A.D.2d 611; People v Bryant, 31 A.D.2d 934).

The trial court properly discharged a sworn juror during the trial and replaced her with an alternate juror ( see, CPL 270.35; People v. Jamison, 203 A.D.2d 385; People v. Morgan, 175 A.D.2d 184; People v. Rivera, 172 A.D.2d 570). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hladky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 1, 1996
229 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Hladky

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH HLADKY…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 1996

Citations

229 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 74

Citing Cases

State v. Bryant

Moreover, we reject the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in directing that the term of…

People v. Riley

However, the appellant's contention that his sentences for the murder of Owens and the attempted murder of…