People v. Levine
| Decision Date | 28 December 1992 |
| Citation | 592 N.Y.S.2d 268,188 A.D.2d 665 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Sheldon LEVINE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Schapiro & Reich, Lindenhurst (Perry S. Reich, of counsel), for appellant. Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Edward D. Saslaw and Christine Duisin, of counsel), for respondent.
Prior report: 167 A.D.2d 484, 562 N.Y.S.2d 155. Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 6, 1991, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 to vacate a judgment of the same court, rendered October 23, 1989, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree (11 counts), falsifying business records (974 counts), criminal solicitation in the fourth degree, conspiracy in the fifth degree, and misdemeanor tax law violations (16 counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the order is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, it was not illegal for the court to impose consecutive sentences on the counts of grand larceny in the second degree, as each of those counts was based on separate and distinct acts (see, Penal Law § 70.25[2]; People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208, 212, 538 N.Y.S.2d 785, 535 N.E.2d 1325; People v. Williams, 155 A.D.2d 568, 547 N.Y.S.2d 422; People v. Mabry, 151 A.D.2d 507, 542 N.Y.S.2d 297). The defendant's remaining contentions could have been raised on the direct appeal, as sufficient facts appeared on the record of the proceedings underlying the judgment to have permitted review thereof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that those claims could not be raised on a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see, CPL 440.10[2][c].
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levine v. Commissioner of Correctional Services
...Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied the motion, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed. See People v. Levine, 188 A.D.2d 665, 592 N.Y.S.2d 268 (2d Dep't 1992). Leave to appeal Eventually, Levine returned to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New ......
-
People v. Garcia
...this Court is now foreclosed from reviewing his claims. People v.Page 5Jossiah. 2 A.D.3d 877 (2d Dept. 2003): People v. Levine. 188 A.D.2d 665 (2d Dept. 1992): People v Cooks. 67 N.Y.2d 100 (1986). Even if this Court were to consider Defendant's argument on the merits, his motion must be de......
-
People v. Simmons, Indictment No. 7634/91
...cannot properly be raised on the instant motion. C.P.L. § 440.10(2)©; People v. Jossiah, 2 A.D.3d 877 (2d Dept. 2003); People v. Levine, 188 A.D.2d 665 (2d Dept. 1992). Furthermore, Defendant's motion is denied pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10(3)(b). Section 440.10(3)(b) permits the Court to den......
-
People v. Mainella
...People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208, 538 N.Y.S.2d 785, 535 N.E.2d 1325; People v. Pinkard, 209 A.D.2d 1051, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1008; People v. Levine, 188 A.D.2d 665, 592 N.Y.S.2d 268, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 708, 601 N.Y.S.2d 604, 619 N.E.2d 682). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor Judgment unanimou......