People v. Davis

Decision Date16 November 2004
Docket Number4220.
Citation2004 NY Slip Op 08161,12 A.D.3d 237,784 N.Y.S.2d 536
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARL DAVIS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Two of the assaults of which defendant was convicted arose from defendant's head-on collision with a marked police car in which two officers were injured. The third assault conviction arose from injuries sustained by a third police officer in the ensuing struggle. On resentence,* the court ordered the three assault sentences to run consecutively, with the sentences for reckless endangerment and grand larceny to run concurrently to the sentences for the assault charges. As the People concede, the sentences imposed for the two assault convictions for injuries sustained by the police officers as a result of defendant's collision with the police car cannot run consecutively to each other since they arose out of the same act (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444, 452 [1996]). Accordingly, we modify to direct that those sentences run concurrently with each other and with the sentences for reckless endangerment and grand larceny. The sentence for the third assault conviction is to run consecutively to the other sentences, as originally imposed. Since the aggregate sentence is consistent with the intent of the resentencing court, we see no need for a remand (see People v Lawrence, 130 AD2d 383 [1987]; see also People v LaSalle, 95 NY2d 827 [2000]).

While defendant asks that the sentences for the assaults all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 28, 2010
    ...follow its reasoning. Nor are this Court's decisions in People v. Rosado, 28 A.D.3d 215, 811 N.Y.S.2d 664 [2006] and People v. Davis, 12 A.D.3d 237, 784 N.Y.S.2d 536 [2004], appeal withdrawn 4 N.Y.3d 762, 792 N.Y.S.2d 6, 825 N.E.2d 138 [2005] inconsistent with the result reached herein. In ......
  • Waterside Plaza, LLC v. Smith
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 16, 2004
    ... ... ), which resolved certain litigation and administrative proceedings between ownership interests and the Waterside Tenants Association (see Davis v Waterside Housing Co., 274 AD2d 318 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 770 [2000]), the complex was converted from the Mitchell-Lama program to fair market ... ...
  • People v. Davis
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2005
    ...N.E.2d 138 4 N.Y.3d 762 PEOPLE v. DAVIS. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. January 14, 2005. Appeal from 1st Dept.: 12 A.D.3d 237, 784 N.Y.S.2d 536 (NY). Application for leave to criminal appeal withdrawn. (Read, ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT