From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 30, 1997
245 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 30, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).


Defendant's challenge to a prospective juror for cause was properly disallowed. Although the venireperson in question expressed some hesitancy in his ability to be impartial due to his familiarity with the area where the crime occurred, during subsequent questioning the prospective juror became unequivocal that he could and would deliberate impartially. In determining whether there was a substantial risk of bias ( see, People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 885), the trial court is in the best position to observe the demeanor and responses of the venireperson ( People v. Guzman, 76 N.Y.2d 1, 5), and, based upon the totality of the venireperson's answers, we find no reason to disturb the court's determination.

The definite sentence imposed on defendant's conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree should not have been imposed consecutively, because service of an indeterminate sentence shall satisfy any definite sentence imposed for an offense committed prior to the time the indeterminate sentence was imposed (Penal Law § 70.35; People v. Leabo, 84 N.Y.2d 952, 953). The sentencing court did not err in ruling that one count of first-degree reckless endangerment was to run consecutively with defendant's first-degree manslaughter conviction and her other two reckless endangerment sentences where the People established that the acts committed by defendant were separate and distinct, constituting separate crimes ( People v. Brathwaite, 63 N.Y.2d 839; People v. Laureano, 87 N.Y.2d 640, 643-644), notwithstanding that the acts were part of one transaction ( see, People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 361, 364). Defendant was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender ( see, Penal Law § 70.06 [b] [ii]), because the alleged predicate felony conviction occurred after defendant's commission of the instant felonies. There being no need to remand for resentencing ( People v. Lawrence, 130 A.D.2d 383), we modify the sentence accordingly.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Ortega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 30, 1997
245 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Ortega

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. REYNA ORTEGA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 213 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 634

Citing Cases

People v. White

Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendants have not shown any prejudice warranting reversal…

People v. Robles

The predicate for this adjudication was a 1991 conviction for which, the parties agree, an illegal sentence…