From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Paccione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 2002
290 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-10571

Submitted January 10, 2002.

January 28, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered November 3, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to two consecutive one-year terms of imprisonment, to run consecutively with a previously-imposed Federal sentence.

Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Franklin Square, N.Y., for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Bruce E. Whitney and Margaret E. Mainusch of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, LEO F. McGINITY, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the one-year terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As the People correctly concede, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25(2), the sentences imposed upon the defendant on each of the two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree must run concurrently with each other, since the guns and ammunition found during a search of his home were discovered at the same time and in the same location (see, People v. Albritton, 204 A.D.2d 651; People v. Rogers, 111 A.D.2d 665, 666). However, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in directing that the sentences run consecutively with a previously-imposed Federal sentence (see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Troia, 96 A.D.2d 954).

Moreover, relitigation of the issue of whether the guns and ammunition found during the search of the defendant's home should have been suppressed is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. That issue was previously determined in People v. Paccione ( 259 A.D.2d 563), in which this court modified an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to provide that those branches of the defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence which were to suppress the guns and ammunition should have been denied (see, People v. Carroll, 200 A.D.2d 630, 631).

FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, McGINITY and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Paccione

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 28, 2002
290 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Paccione

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ANTHONY PACCIONE, appellant

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

Date published: Jan 28, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 617

Citing Cases

People v. Smith

Here, the defendant's convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under counts 7, 8,…

Sankara v. O'Hara

Under New York law, a criminal defendant may be collaterally estopped from reasserting claims that were fully…