| People v Rodriguez |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04058 [118 AD3d 451] |
| June 5, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Louis Rodriguez, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Susan H. Salomon ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Joshua L. Haber of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), renderedJuly 14, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree,attempted murder in the second degree and two counts each of assault in the first degree,criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and sentencing him, as a secondviolent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 80 years to life, unanimously modified,on the law, to the extent of directing that the sentence for defendant's conviction ofcriminal possession of a weapon under the sixth count of the indictment run concurrentlywith the sentences on the murder, attempted murder and assault convictions, andotherwise affirmed.
The court conducted a thorough colloquy with a juror who expressed a concern forhis safety as a result of his erroneous belief that defendant's wife had tried to contact him,and, following this inquiry, the court properly concluded that the juror was not grosslyunqualified to continue serving. After the juror learned that the call he received(apparently the result of a stranger dialing a wrong number) could not have been fromdefendant's wife, he assured the court that this incident would not affect his ability toremain fair and impartial (see CPL 270.35 [1]; People v Buford, 69 NY2d290 [1987]).
The sentence for defendant's conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (1)(b), for possessing a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another, mustrun concurrently with the sentences on the other charges relating to the shootings. ThePeople neither alleged nor proved any unlawful intent that was separate from his intent toshoot the victims (see People vWright, 19 NY3d 359 [2012]). However, the court lawfully imposed aconsecutive sentence for the conviction under Penal Law § 265.03 (3),because there was a completed possession, within the meaning of that statute, before theshooting took place (see Peoplev Brown, 21 NY3d 739 [2013]).
We perceive no other basis for reducing the sentences. Concur—Mazzarelli,J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.