ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Published on:

New York Appellate Court Upholds Consecutive Sentencing in Burglary and Murder Conviction

gavel and booksSentencing is one of the most challenging aspects of any trial, and perhaps the most critical part of the legal process when it comes to how significantly the matter will affect the defendant’s future. At Tilem & Associates, our seasoned New York criminal defense lawyers assist defendants with ensuring that they receive no greater a sentence than they deserve. As a recent appellate opinion demonstrates, having a knowledgeable attorney in your corner can make all of the difference.

In the appeal, the defendant asked the court to review whether there was a sufficient legal basis for imposing consecutive sentences. The defendant was charged with a number of crimes, including burglary in the first degree and murder in the second degree. The defendant was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend’s home and stabbing her with a kitchen knife. Although the defendant admitted to causing the victim’s death, he asserted a defense indicating that he was under an extreme emotional disturbance.

Ultimately, the defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary and intentional murder. During sentencing, the prosecution contended that consecutive sentences were appropriate, due to the evidence presented regarding the brutal nature of the murder, which involved the defendant dragging the victim down a flight of stairs and stabbing her at least 38 times. Specifically, the prosecution noted that the defendant caused injuries to the victim on two separate occasions:  when he dragged her out of bed upstairs, and when he inflicted fatal wounds on her downstairs with the knife. In response, the defendant argued that consecutive sentences were inappropriate because the crimes constituted one continuing sequence of events that the defendant had formulated prior to breaking into the victim’s home.

The lower court concluded that there were sufficient legal grounds to impose consecutive sentences, imposing a term of 54 years to life. The Appellate Division was conflicted on whether the prosecution had adequately shown that the two crimes were separate and distinct enough to justify consecutive sentences and granted the defendant leave to file an appeal.

On review, the court first noted that Penal Law Section 70.26 authorizes a sentencing judge to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences except when more than one sentence is imposed for two or more offenses that were committed during the course of a single act or omission, or by an act or omission that by itself constituted an offense and was also a material element of the other sentences. In this instance, the sentences must run concurrently. Stated simply, multiple sentences cannot be imposed consecutively when one act comprises the multiple offenses or when one act comprises one of the offenses and a material element of the other offenses.

Applying this law to the facts in the record, the appellate court concluded that the prosecution had offered sufficient evidence to show that the defendant engaged in two separate acts and that they were not part of one overall act. As a result, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s sentence.

If you are facing a criminal investigation or prosecution, it is imperative that you speak to a seasoned criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible. We understand that you are eager to clear your name and to put this matter behind you, but speaking to the authorities can do more harm than good. Having served many people throughout the area in a wide variety of matters, including drug offenses, DUIs, and murder charges, we have the skills you need to ensure that your rights are protected at all times. Call us now at 1-877-377-8666 or contact us online to set up your free consultation.

Related Posts

New York Appellate Court Upholds Assault Conviction, Rejects Defendant’s Justification Defense

STOSSEL DOCUMENTARY SHINES LIGHT ON NEW YORK GUN LAW ABYSS

New York Court of Appeal Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Lower Court’s Jury Instruction Error