From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1977
57 A.D.2d 850 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

May 2, 1977


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 3, 1975 (the date on the clerk's extract is April 4, 1975), convicting him of attempted murder and possession of weapons, etc., as a felony (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of possession of weapons, etc., as a felony (under count three of Indictment No. 2961/1972), and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Under the facts of this case, the defendant-appellant could not have committed the crime of attempted murder without having also been guilty of the crime of possession of weapons, etc. (a black handgun), as charged in count three of Indictment No. 2961/1972. Therefore, the defendant's conviction under the said count must be reversed; that count is concurrent to, and included within, the count which charged attempted murder (see CPL 300.40, subd 4; People v Grier, 37 N.Y.2d 847; People v Fluker, 54 A.D.2d 738). We have examined the defendant's other arguments for reversal and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1977
57 A.D.2d 850 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES WILLIAMS, Also…

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

Date published: May 2, 1977

Citations

57 A.D.2d 850 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

People v. Perez

Interpreting this statutory definition, the Appellate Division has, in a number of recent cases similar to…

People v. McCray

The charge to the jury in this regard was correct, and, contrary to defendant's contention, the "merger…