In April 1969, the relator was convicted in the Nassau County Court of one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of forgery in the third degree, on the basis of his prior plea of guilty. He was sentenced, on each count, to imprisonment in the Nassau County Jail for a period of one year, said terms to be served consecutively.
A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that in November 1968, the relator had falsely drawn four checks, all on the same bank account and to the order of the same payee, and that he had received from the payee named in the purported checks property and cash having an aggregate value of more than $250.00.
The Relator contends that since both of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty arose from the same transaction, the issuance of a forged instrument and the receipt of value therefor, the Court lacked power to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment.
The relator relies principally upon section 70.25, subd. 2, of the Penal Law which provides as follows: ‘When more than one sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a person for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other, the sentences must run concurrently.’
What constitutes a ‘single act or omission’ within the meaning of the quoted provision has been the subject of several recent decisions, not all of which can be easily reconciled. Although the issue in that case was whether concurrent sentences for assault in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree constituted double punishment violative of section 1938 of the former Penal Law, the analysis in the Court’s opinion has relevance to the issue at bar.
In reaching that interpretation of the former statute, the Court relied on and cited with approval prior cases holding that consecutive sentences were improper where defendant used a loaded revolver to detain his victims while he robbed them, and was subsequently convicted of both robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, or where, with no intent to kill, the defendant fired a gun injuring one whom he was in the act of robbing and was subsequently convicted of robbery and assault in the second degree, or where, during an escape from prison, one of several inmates held a gun on a deputy sheriff while another took the keys from his pocket and the escapees were later convicted of robbery and assault, both in the first degree.
More recently, it has been held that separate sentences imposed upon convictions for attempted robbery and conspiracy to commit the same act of robbery and for attempted extortion and conspiracy to commit the same act of extortion and for attempted rape and assault with intent to commit rape were required to be concurrent rather than consecutive. There is, however, a holding that consecutive sentences may be imposed upon convictions for unlawful entry and petit larceny arising from the defendant’s act of breaking and entering an apartment and stealing personal property from the apartment.
Attempting to apply the rationale of these decisions to the case at bar, it is the opinion of this Court that the imposition of consecutive sentences upon the relator herein did, in fact, violate section 70.25, subdivision 2, of the Penal Law. The forged check, reproduced in the indictment, bears the relator’s own name and purports to be drawn on a joint account maintained by relator and his wife, whose names are printed on the check. The single act that made the relator guilty of forgery was drawing the check without funds on deposit in such account to pay the check. That same act made relator guilty of larceny when he received property and money from the payee in exchange for the worthless check.
There is further ground for sustaining the writ herein. Subdivision 3 of section 70.25 of the Penal Law provides: ‘Where consecutive definite sentences of imprisonment are not prohibited by subdivision two of this section and are imposed on a person for offenses which are committed as parts of a single incident or transaction, the aggregate of the terms of such sentences shall not exceed one year.’
Here, clearly, the relator’s criminal conduct, the acts constituting forgery and grand larceny, were committed as parts of a single transaction. Therefore, even if the Court had authority to impose consecutive sentences, the aggregate of the terms imposed was limited to one year.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, the writ is sustained and a judgment shall issue directing that the relator be discharged from custody forthwith.
Accused in a criminal action should be properly represented by a diligent and competent lawyer like our Nassau County Criminal lawyers here in Stephen Bilkis and Associates. We will give you proper advice for a particular scenario. For those who are sexually abused, you can also consult our Nassau County Sex Abuse attorneys. We will be glad to hear your problems in order to help you.