People v. Riley, 2004-03714.
| Decision Date | 11 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-03714. |
| Citation | 22 A.D.3d 609,2005 NY Slip Op 07568,802 N.Y.S.2d 251 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM RILEY, Also Known as AJAMU OLUTOSIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
On February 13, 1987, the defendant was sentenced for his involvement in the robbery, murder, and attempted murder of Gary Owens and Dwayne Morrison, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life upon his conviction of two counts of second degree murder (intentional and felony murder of Owens), as well as 8 1/3 to 25 years upon his conviction of attempted murder (Morrison) and 12½ to 25 years upon his conviction of two counts of first degree robbery (one for each victim), to run consecutive to each other and to the sentence on the murder convictions. In 2003 we vacated the defendant's sentences and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing, holding that the two robbery sentences should run concurrently to the sentence for felony murder, but the sentences for attempted murder and both robberies could run consecutively to each other and to the sentence for intentional murder (see People v. Riley, supra).
Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court resentenced the defendant in accordance with our prior decision and order. As he did on his prior appeal to this Court, arising from the same trial, the defendant again challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences with respect to the attempted murder, intentional murder, and robbery convictions. However, this Court's rejection of the defendant's claim on his prior appeal "constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of `manifest error' in the prior decision or that `exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine,' the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered" (People v. Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742 [1993], quoting People v. Barnes, 155 AD2d 468, 469 [1989]; see People v. Taylor, 87 AD2d 771, 772 [1982], affd 57 NY2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baker, 2014-00389, Ind. No. 670/09.
...194 A.D.2d 741, 741–742, 600 N.Y.S.2d 250, quoting People v. Barnes, 155 A.D.2d 468, 469, 547 N.Y.S.2d 131 ; see People v. Riley, 22 A.D.3d 609, 610, 802 N.Y.S.2d 251 ; People v. Taylor, 87 A.D.2d 771, 772, 450 N.Y.S.2d 370, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 729, 454 N.Y.S.2d 976, 440 N.E.2d 1323 ). There is......
-
People v. Boone
...departure from the law of the case doctrine,’ the defendant is precluded from having [these] issue[s] reconsidered” ( People v. Riley, 22 A.D.3d 609, 610, 802 N.Y.S.2d 251 [some internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v. Martinez, 194 A.D.2d 741, 741–742, 600 N.Y.S.2d 250; People ......
-
People v. Breazil
...600 N.Y.S.2d 250 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Boone, 84 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 925 N.Y.S.2d 512;People v. Riley, 22 A.D.3d 609, 610, 802 N.Y.S.2d 251). Under the circumstances presented here, there is no basis to reconsider that issue. Contrary to the defendant's contention......
-
Olutosin v. Annucci
...to run concurrently with the sentence for the felony murder conviction. This judgment was affirmed on appeal ( People v. Riley, 22 A.D.3d 609, 802 N.Y.S.2d 251 [2005], lvs denied 6 N.Y.3d 779, 780, 811 N.Y.S.2d 346, 844 N.E.2d 801 [2006] ).Following resentencing, the Department of Correctio......