A man pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and was sentenced to six months imprisonment concurrent with five years probation.
After three years, the man was arrested for robbery in the first degree and other charges. After a year, he pleaded of guilty to attempted robbery in the second degree and was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to three to six years. The sentence was ordered to run consecutively to an undischarged sentence. He also pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and had been sentenced to two to four years in prison as a second violent felony offender.
After four years, the man was again arrested for attempted murder in the second degree. The following year, he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The man was evaluated a persistent violent felony offender and was sentenced to two years to life. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the previous undischarged sentences imposed in two different county cases.
Later, the man was convicted by a jury of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. Consequently, the district attorney provided a predicate violent felony statement which listed the four prior violent felony convictions. The man admitted the prior convictions and sentences. He also declined to argue the constitutionality of any of the convictions. The court again categorized the man a persistent violent felony offender. The man was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty-two and one-half (22 1/2) years to life for each conviction.
The man appealed to the decisions of conviction on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The appellate division affirmed and leave to appeal to the court was denied.
Based on records, a persistent violent felony offender is a person who stands convicted of a violent felony offense after having been subjected to two or more predicate violent felony convictions.
The man contends that the court must vacate his current sentence because the predicate convictions could not be used to enhance his sentence as they violated the rule of sequentiality.
Specifically, the man maintains that his previous conviction could not serve as a predicate violent felony conviction because the conviction had been reversed. However, the man’s contention is without merit.
Clearly, the man’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was clear by the reversal in the robbery case.
The man also contends that his attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree conviction cannot serve as a predicate violent felony conviction because the sentencing court ran his sentence.
The man further contends that his attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree conviction could not serve as a predicate violent felony conviction because that sentencing court had directed that his sentence run concurrently with his two previous sentences. The man maintains that the running of the sentences concurrently violated the rule of sequentiality.
Contrary to the man’s contention, the running of sentences concurrently does not make each of the sentences into one sentence.
The court cited previous case in which the offender had two prior violent felony convictions. He had pled guilty to each on separate indictments on the same day and had been sentenced on the same day to concurrent prison terms. The court of appeals vacated the offender’s persistent violent felony offender adjudication, not because the sentences were to run concurrently, but rather, because the sentence on the first offense had not been imposed prior to the commission of the second offense and therefore, for the purposes of the violent persistent law, the convictions constituted only one conviction.
Sources revealed that the imposition of concurrent sentences does not change those dates. Thus, the attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree sentence stands alone as a prior violent felony conviction as the crime occurred after the imposition of the sentences on the earlier cases.
In the man’s case, his two different convictions are but one conviction for the purpose of the man’s adjudication as a persistent violent felon. The sentence on the other county offense was not imposed prior to the arrest on the second county offense.
Consequently, the man’s motion to vacate the sentence is denied. The man’s remaining contention is likewise without merit.
There are individuals who commit unlawful actions without thinking of its consequences. Some continuously commit such offense even if they already suffered from what they did. If you want to file a case against another person, you can ask legal guidance from the Nassau County Criminal Lawyer or Nassau County Family Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.