| People v LaTulip |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04286 [73 AD3d 1345] |
| May 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arnold H.LaTulip, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), renderedJanuary 7, 2009, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in thefourth degree.
Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree andcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree in full satisfaction of athree-count indictment against him. Thereafter, County Court imposed a sentence of three yearsin prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision for each count, to be servedconcurrently. After pronouncement of the sentences, defendant requested that they be ordered tobe served concurrently with a prison term of 1
Defendant's sole contention is that his current sentences should run concurrently with thatimposed in Essex County in the absence of a judicial pronouncement that they be servedconsecutively. Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (1), a sentence shall run either concurrentlyor consecutively with respect to an undischarged term of imprisonment as the court directs at thetime of sentence. Here, County Court's intention that the sentences imposed were to be servedconsecutively to defendant's existing sentence was unequivocal, inasmuch as the court expresslyrejected defendant's request that the sentences be ordered to be served concurrently (see Matter of [*2]Welch v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1077 [2010]).
Spain, J.P., Rose, McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.