| People v Stegeman |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04079 [139 AD3d 1092] |
| May 25, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nicholas Stegeman, Also Known as Wiz,Appellant. |
Bruce A. Petito, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County(Forman, J.), rendered February 26, 2015, as amended June 18, 2015, convicting him ofrobbery in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying thedefendant's motion pursuant to CPL 200.20 (3) to sever the two charges in theindictment, which arose from separate incidents on separate dates. The crimes were "thesame or similar in law" (CPL 220.20 [2] [c]; see Penal Law§ 160.15 [4]), and consequently were properly joinable (see People vJenkins, 50 NY2d 981, 982 [1980]; People v Mack, 111 AD2d 186, 188[1985]). Furthermore, the defendant failed to show, in the interest of justice and upongood cause, that the charges should be tried separately (CPL 200.20 [3]). The defendantfailed to demonstrate that there was substantially more proof of one incident, ascompared to the other, and that there was a substantial likelihood that the jury would beunable to consider separately the proof as it related to each incident (see CPL200.20 [3] [a]; People vFord, 11 NY3d 875, 879 [2008]; People v Cox, 298 AD2d 461[2002]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.