People v Bezabeh
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether consecutive sentences for two petit larceny counts were lawful under New York Penal Law § 70.25 [prohibits consecutive sentences when a single act constitutes two offenses or when a single act constitutes one offense and a material element of the other] and whether the appeal was moot after sentence completion given potential immigration consequences under 8 United States Code (USC) § 1227(a)(2)(A) [grounds of deportability for certain criminal convictions].
The Supreme Court, Queens County, accepted a guilty plea to two counts of petit larceny and imposed consecutive 364-day jail terms on each count.
The consecutive nature of the sentences; the Appellate Division modified the judgment to make the sentences concurrent.
The record—indictment and plea allocution—did not establish separate and distinct acts supporting two larcenies; thus, consecutive sentences were unlawful under Penal Law § 70.25. The issue was not moot because the sentences carry potential immigration consequences.
Background
Fasika Bezabeh pleaded guilty to two counts of petit larceny in Supreme Court, Queens County, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 364 days on each count. He appealed, arguing the consecutive sentences were illegal because the record did not show distinct acts of larceny.
Lower Court Decision
Conviction on a guilty plea to two counts of petit larceny with consecutive terms of 364 days' imprisonment on each count imposed by the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.).
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified on the law to direct that the sentence on the first petit larceny count run concurrently with the sentence on the second count; as modified, the judgment was affirmed. The court held no facts in the indictment or plea allocution established separate acts to justify consecutive sentences (citing People v Laureano, People v Brown, People v Brahney). The appeal was not academic despite sentence completion due to potential immigration consequences under 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(A).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that consecutive sentences are impermissible absent record proof of separate and distinct acts supporting each offense under Penal Law § 70.25, and clarifies that immigration consequences prevent issues from becoming moot even after a sentence is fully served.
If the record does not show distinct criminal acts, multiple convictions arising from a single act must receive concurrent sentences; courts and counsel should ensure the record supports consecutive sentencing, and defendants can challenge illegal consecutive sentences even post-release due to immigration consequences.