From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by providing that the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of burglary in the first degree shall run concurrently with the terms of imprisonment imposed on the convictions of robbery: in the first degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because his defense counsel previously represented a prosecution witness on an unrelated criminal. charge. This contention is without merit. The record reveals that, as soon as defense counsel learned of the potential conflict, he advised the court and the defendant. The court promptly conducted an inquiry on the record and ascertained that the defendant understood the potential risks of continued representation by the attorney and chose to continue such representation ( see, People v. Lombardo, 61 N.Y.2d 97; People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307). The defendant failed to demonstrate that the prior representation bore a substantial relationship to or operated on the conduct of his defense ( see, People v. Ortiz, 76 N.Y.2d 652; People v. Alicea, 61 N.Y.2d 23; People v. Finley, 190 A.D.2d 859).

The trial court erred in directing that the sentence imposed on the conviction of burglary in the first degree was to run consecutively to the sentences imposed on the convictions of robbery in the first degree. Upon review of the charges presented to the jury and the evidence adduced at trial, the defendant's acts underlying these crimes cannot be considered separate and distinct for sentencing purposes. Therefore, the sentences should be concurrent ( see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444, 453; People v. McCloud, 182 A.D.2d 835).

We reject the defendant's further contention that the sentences imposed on the robbery convictions were excessive given, among other things, his extensive criminal history ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roberts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1998
251 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Roberts

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND ROBERTS…

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

Date published: Jun 4, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 431 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 117

Citing Cases

People v. Sellers

The defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest.…

People v. Brockway

Defendant further contends with respect to each appeal that he was denied effective assistance of counsel…