Opinion
February 1, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Sentences imposed for two or more offenses may not run consecutively where a single act constitutes two offenses, or where a single act constitutes one of the offenses and a material element of the other (Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444, 451). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, although occurring within one extended transaction, the robbery of each victim herein was comprised of separate and distinct acts and thus the imposition of consecutive sentences is not Illegal ( see, People v. Shiwlochan, 251 A.D.2d 687; People v. Humphrey, 244 A.D.2d 502; People v. White, 192 A.D.2d 736; People v. Murray, 168 A.D.2d 572).
The defendant's admission of his prior violent felony was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and as a result, he did not preserve for appellate review his challenge to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender ( People v. Wolmart, 140 A.D.2d 733). In any event, the defendant's claim that he was on drugs at the time he pleaded guilty to the underlying robbery conviction is devoid of facts sufficient to support a finding of unconstitutionality and does not require a hearing ( see, People v. Cooper, 241 A.D.2d 553; People v. Harris, 199 A.D.2d 102).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.