Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Conrad Wicks, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-12-18
Citations: 2 A.D.2d 285
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Conrad Wicks, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Conrad Wicks, Appellant.
[768 NYS2d 596]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered October 5, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years to life, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the conviction relating to a defaced weapon (Penal Law § 265.02 [3]) to 31/2 to 7 years, and otherwise affirmed. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 25, 2002, which denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count (see People v Spence, 290 AD2d 223 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 641 [2002]; People v Kulakov, 278 AD2d 519 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 785 [2001]).
As the People correctly concede, defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender on the conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under Penal Law § 265.02 (3), which relates to defaced weapons, since weapon possession under that subdivision is not classified as a violent felony (Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [c]), and we reduce the sentence accordingly. The record does not establish that defendant's sentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for any other reduction of sentence.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate judgment. The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental submissions. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Rosenberger and Friedman, JJ.