People v. Brown
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defen
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by directing that the sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree under count four of the indictment shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the conviction of illegal possession of a vehicle identification number under count eleven of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).
However, the judgment must be modified to direct that the sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property under count four of the indictment shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the conviction of illegal possession of a vehicle identification number under count eleven of the indictment. The imposition of consecutive sentences on those convictions, involving the same stolen vehicle, would violate Penal Law § 70.25 (2) (see People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.