| People v Phillips |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01536 [70 AD3d 562] |
| February 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v HoytPhillips, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas J. Iacovetta, J., at speedy trial motion;Ethan Greenberg, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 12, 2007, convicting defendant offour counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felonyoffender, to an aggregate term of 90 years to life, modified, as a matter of discretion in theinterest of justice, to the extent of directing that all the sentences be served concurrently,resulting in a new aggregate term of 25 years to life, and otherwise affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's speedy trial motion. The People were required to beready within 182 days, and they concede that 108 days of delay are includable. Although weagree with defendant that the two 14-day adjournments commencing on April 3 and 17, 2006were includable, we find that the 48-day period of delay following August 9, 2005 wasexcludable as "a reasonable period of delay resulting from . . . pre-trial motions. . . and the period during which such matters [were] under consideration by thecourt" (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; see People vReed, 19 AD3d 312, 314-315 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 832 [2005]). Therefore,the total delay chargeable to the People is only 152 days.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence regarding three of the fourrobbery convictions (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). We reject those challenges; there is no basisfor disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility.
The first three robberies, occurring within a short time period and in the public areas ofapartment buildings located within close geographic proximity, had many similarities thatformed a "distinctive repetitive pattern" (People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 48 [1979]; see also People v Arafet, 13 NY3d460 [2009]). Therefore, the court's instruction to the jury that it could consider thesimilarities between the various incidents on the issue of identity, while also cautioning it not tootherwise commingle the evidence, was proper (see People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241,250-253 [1982]; People v McRae, 276 AD2d 332 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d966 [2000]).
We find the sentence excessive for a 50-year-old defendant whose felony convictionsinvolved use of weapons, but did not involve infliction of physical injury. And, although the newaggregate sentence of 25 years to life "would amount to little more than the mandatory minimum[*2]sentence" for one of the robberies, as the dissent notes, in thiscase defendant would not be eligible for parole until he is well into his 70s, thus essentiallymaking it a true life sentence. Defendant's remaining challenge to his sentence is academic.Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias and Acosta, JJ.
Saxe and Catterson, JJ., dissent in a memorandum by Catterson, J., as follows: I respectfullydissent because I see no reason to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to reduce atwice-adjudicated persistent violent felony offender's sentence to what would amount to littlemore than the mandatory minimum sentence for one of the four counts of knifepoint robbery forwhich he was convicted.
Defendant was convicted of four counts of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to anaggregate term of 90 years to life. He received two terms of 20 years to life and two terms of 25years to life, with all four to run consecutively.
In my view, the only possible reduction in sentence would be to run two of the sentencesconcurrently with the remaining two sentences. This would reduce defendant's sentence to anaggregate term of 45 years to life rather than the majority's reduction to 25 years to life.Admittedly this is a very serious sentence. However, any other reduction essentially results indefendant receiving no additional jail time for the remaining three knifepoint robberies. In myview, this is an improvident exercise of our powers of review in the interests of justice. This isespecially true given the defendant's extensive violent criminal history.