People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 10 January 2012
• Citation: 935 N.Y.S.2d 895,91 A.D.3d 679,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00234
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Bill WILLIAMS, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00234

91 A.D.3d 679

935 N.Y.S.2d 895

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Bill WILLIAMS, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Jan. 10, 2012.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ruth E. Ross of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Ingram, J.), rendered January 7, 2009, convicting him of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree (4 counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree (11 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (2 counts), after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 23 years to life upon his conviction of rape in the first degree, 4 concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 23 years to life upon his convictions of the counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life upon his conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, 11 concurrent definite terms of imprisonment of one year upon his convictions of the counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, and 2 concurrent definite terms of imprisonment of one year upon his convictions of the counts of endangering the welfare of a child, with the sentences for rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree to run consecutively to each other, and all other terms to run concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 66 years to life.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, (1) by vacating the convictions of sexual abuse in the second degree under counts 8, 15, 16, and 17 of the indictment, vacating the sentences imposed on those counts of the indictment, and dismissing those counts of the indictment, and (2) by providing that the sentence imposed upon the defendant's conviction of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree shall run concurrently with all other sentences; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As the People correctly concede on this appeal, the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the defendant's convictions of sexual abuse in the second degree under counts 8 and 15 of the indictment.The People further correctly concede that two additional convictions of sexual abuse in the second degree must be reversed as multiplicitous ( seePeople v. Alonzo,16 N.Y.3d 267, 920 N.Y.S.2d 302, 945 N.E.2d 495).Accordingly, we reverse the defendant's convictions for sexual abuse in the second...