From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rolling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

October 28, 1991

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


Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence on each count to a definite term of six months imprisonment, and providing that the terms of imprisonment for criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and petit larceny are to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the term of imprisonment imposed for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends, and the People concede, that the court erred in imposing one year terms of imprisonment in connection with the class A misdemeanors of which he was convicted. Although at the time sentence was imposed, Penal Law § 70.15 authorized the imposition of a one year definite sentence, the law as it existed when the defendant committed the crimes provided for a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment (see, Donnino, Supplementary Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 70.15, 1991 Penal Pocket Part, at 47; see also, L 1990, ch 305 § 7; L 1984, ch 673). It is well settled that the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution extends, inter alia, to any statute which makes the punishment for a crime more burdensome after its commission (see, e.g., People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 48-49). In light of the foregoing, the maximum permissible sentence which could have been imposed was the six month term of imprisonment prescribed by the statute as it existed when the crimes in question were committed.

Further, and as the People also concede, the court impermissibly imposed consecutive terms of imprisonment on the petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property counts, since, under the circumstances presented, the foregoing crimes were perpetrated through the commission of a "single act" (CPL 70.25 [2]; People v. Sturkey, 77 N.Y.2d 979, 980-981; cf., People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208; People v. Kirkwood, 165 A.D.2d 881; People v Johnson, 149 A.D.2d 910). Mangano, P.J., Kooper, Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rolling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1991
176 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Rolling

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NORVELL ROLLING…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 1991

Citations

176 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
575 N.Y.S.2d 577

Citing Cases

People v. Gadson

We find that the sentence imposed on the conviction of assault in the first degree was neither unduly harsh…

People v. Cantarella

The forgery and possession of a forged instrument alleged against Bilboa relate to a single check. The…