People v. Clymer, 2004-04265.
| Decision Date | 21 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2004-04265. |
| Citation | 26 A.D.3d 443,809 N.Y.S.2d 207,2006 NY Slip Op 01308 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DEAN CLYMER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that counts 31 and 32 of the indictment, charging him with criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument, are multiplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Cruz, 96 NY2d 857, 858 [2001]; People v. Aarons, 296 AD2d 508 [2002]; People v. Webb, 177 AD2d 524, 525 [1991]; People v. Smith, 113 AD2d 905, 907 [1985]). Furthermore, the imposition of consecutive sentences on the two counts of criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument was a provident exercise of the court's discretion since these two counts charged separate acts, which occurred weeks apart from one another, at different locations. Therefore, the consecutive sentences were not proscribed by Penal Law § 70.25 (2). Moreover, the consecutive sentences did not violate Penal Law § 70.25 (3) since the defendant's acts of criminally possessing hypodermic instruments on two separate dates and at two separate locations did not encompass the same incident or transaction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Edmondson
...1112 ; People v. Campbell, 120 A.D.3d 827, 991 N.Y.S.2d 341 ; People v. Smalls, 81 A.D.3d 860, 916 N.Y.S.2d 647 ; People v. Clymer, 26 A.D.3d 443, 809 N.Y.S.2d 207 ). Nevertheless, under the circumstances presented here, we review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice j......
-
People v. Campbell
...v. Cruz, 96 N.Y.2d 857, 858, 730 N.Y.S.2d 29, 754 N.E.2d 1112; People v. Smalls, 81 A.D.3d 860, 861, 916 N.Y.S.2d 647; People v. Clymer, 26 A.D.3d 443, 809 N.Y.S.2d 207). Nevertheless, under the circumstances presented here, we review this contention in the interest of justice. “[An indictm......
-
People v. Butler
...counts two and three of the indictment are multiplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 210.20, 210.25 ; People v. Clymer, 26 A.D.3d 443, 809 N.Y.S.2d 207 ). In any event, although both counts charge sexual abuse in the first degree, they are not multiplicitous, as each count......
-
People v. Wall
...degree and kidnapping in the first degree were multiplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Clymer, 26 A.D.3d 443, 809 N.Y.S.2d 207) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Saunders, 290 A.D.2d 461, 463, 736 N.Y.S.2d 90). The sentence imposed wa......