| People v Rodriguez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05191 [96 AD3d 1079] |
| June 27, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JoseRodriguez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan,J.), imposed June 11, 2010, pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738), theDrug Law Reform Act of 2005 (L 2005, ch 643), and the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (CPL440.46), resentencing him, inter alia, to three determinate terms of imprisonment of 15 yearsupon his convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (three counts),with two of those terms of imprisonment to run concurrently with each other and the third termof imprisonment to run consecutively to the first two.
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Upon his convictions of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the firstdegree, the defendant originally was sentenced to three determinate terms of imprisonment, withtwo of those terms of imprisonment to run concurrently with each other and the third term ofimprisonment to run consecutively to the first two. Contrary to the defendant's contention, theDrug Law Reform Acts of 2004, 2005, and 2009 (L 2004, ch 738; L 2005, ch 643; CPL 440.46)do not authorize the Supreme Court to alter his sentence so that all three terms of imprisonmentrun concurrently with each other (seePeople v Acevedo, 14 NY3d 828, 831 [2010]; People v Norris, 90 AD3d 788 [2011], lv granted 18 NY3d926 [2012]; People v Norris, 90AD3d 955 [2011], lv granted 18 NY3d 926 [2012]; People v Vaughan, 62 AD3d 122,125-126 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly concluded that it lacked authority todirect that all three terms of imprisonment run concurrently with each other. Mastro, A.P.J.,Angiolillo, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.