People v. Riley
| Decision Date | 20 October 2003 |
| Citation | 309 A.D.2d 879,765 N.Y.S.2d 890 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>WILLIAM RILEY, Also Known as AJAMU OLUTOSIN, Appellant. |
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is granted, the sentence is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.
On October 11, 1985, the appellant and two codefendants robbed Gary Owens and another at gunpoint. After driving the victims around in Owens' car, the appellant and his codefendants ordered them to exit the car and stand against a wall. One of the codefendants then shot Owens in the head, resulting in a wound which eventually caused his death. As the other victim ran away, one of the codefendants shot him three times. After a trial, the appellant and his codefendants were each convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree (intentional murder and felony murder), attempted murder in the second degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree (one count with respect to each victim). On February 13, 1987, the Supreme Court imposed concurrent terms of 25 years to life imprisonment on each of the murder convictions. It also imposed terms of 8 1/3 to 25 years' imprisonment on the attempted murder conviction, and a term of 12½ to 25 years' imprisonment on each conviction of robbery in the first degree. The sentences for the attempted murder conviction and each robbery conviction were to run consecutive to each other and to the murder sentences, for an aggregate sentence of 58 1/3 years to life imprisonment.
In July 1997 the appellant moved to set aside his sentence as illegal pursuant to CPL 440.20 (1), claiming that all of his sentences should run concurrently because all of the offenses "were committed through a single act." By order dated September 3, 1997, the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the appellant's motion, stating that the shootings of each victim and the robberies of each victim were separate and distinct acts. Although the appellant's motion for leave to appeal from this order was originally denied, this Court subsequently granted the appellant's motion for reargument and, upon reargument, granted his motion for leave to appeal from the order dated September 3, 1997. We now reverse the Supreme Court's order, grant the appellant's motion, and vacate the sentence. The sentences on the two convictions of robbery in the first degree should run concurrently to the sentence on his conviction of felony murder. However, we reject the appellant's contention that the sentences on his conviction of attempted murder and the sentences on his robbery convictions may not run consecutively to each other or to the sentence on his conviction of intentional murder.
W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devaughn v. Graham, 14-CV-2322 (NGG)
...run afoul of § 70.25(2), it is not entirely clear that such sentences are prohibited under New York law. See, e.g., People v. Riley, 765 N.Y.S.2d 890, 892-93 (App. Div. 2003).6 Even if they were, Petitioner's challenge to his consecutive sentences is an argument that the state court misappl......
-
Riley v. Conway
...felony offense. On October 20, 2003, the Appellate Division granted that motion and remanded the case for resentencing. People v. Riley, 309 A.D.2d 879 (2d Dep't 2003). On April 15, 2004, the trial court resentenced Riley to the same aggregate prison term of 58years it previously had impose......
-
Walker v. Artus
...offense and armed robbery of Hubbard earlier that evening involved separate and distinct acts. See, e.g., New York v. Riley, 309 A.D.2d 879, 765 N.Y.S.2d 890, 892–93 (2d Dep't 2003) (finding robberies were separate and distinct acts from intentional murder and therefore the sentences may ru......
-
People v. Anarbaev
...431 ; People v. Rodriguez, 112 A.D.3d 488, 489, 976 N.Y.S.2d 96, affd 25 N.Y.3d 238, 10 N.Y.S.3d 495, 32 N.E.3d 930 ; People v. Riley, 309 A.D.2d 879, 881, 765 N.Y.S.2d 890 ). The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).The defendant's re......