People v Foss
2008 NY Slip Op 01190 [48 AD3d 1219]
February 8, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 16, 2008


The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Colby H. Foss,III, Appellant.

[*1]The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Robert L. Kemp of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.

Frank J. Clark, District Attorney, Buffalo (Shawn P. Hennessy of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.),rendered June 29, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abusein the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matterof discretion in the interest of justice by directing that the sentences shall run concurrently withrespect to each other and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of twocounts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). We reject defendant'scontention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction (see generallyPeople v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although the victims testified that they werenot certain when the incidents underlying the charges occurred, a police investigator testified thatshe spoke with the victims and their mother in December 2001 after receiving a telephone callfrom a probation officer who expressed "concerns" about defendant. We thus conclude that thereis a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to theconclusion reached by the jury," i.e., that the crimes were committed in 2001, at which time thevictims were less than 11 years old (id.; see People v Adams, 43 AD3d 1423, 1424 [2007], lv denied9 NY3d 1004 [2007]).

We agree with defendant, however, that the imposition of consecutive sentences with respectto each count renders the sentence unduly harsh and severe, and we therefore modify thejudgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by directing that the sentences shallrun concurrently with respect to each other (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; see generally People v Bailey, 17AD3d 1022, 1023 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 803 [2005]). Present—Scudder,P.J., Centra, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.