Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. RAWLINSON

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department.
Feb 7, 2001
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of three counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35, [3]) and one count of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30). The testimony of the victim was not improperly bolstered; rather, the People adduced admissible evidence of her prompt complaints ( see, People v McDaniel, 81 N.Y.2d 10, 16-17; People v. Kornowski, 178 A.D.2d 984, 985, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1096; see also, People v. Kirkey, 248 A.D.2d 979, 980, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 900), which did not contain unnecessary or impermissible details ( see, People v Aybinder, 215 A.D.2d 181, 181-182, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 840; cf., People v. Rice, 75 N.Y.2d 929, 931-932). Moreover, the record supports the conclusion that each complaint was made at "`the first suitable opportunity'" ( People v. McDaniel, supra, at 17; see, People v. Kornowski, supra, at 984-985).

The People concede that the sentence is illegal insofar as it imposes a term of incarceration of 3½ to 7 years for rape in the second degree ( see, Penal Law § 70.00 [b]; [4]). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the sentence imposed on the count of rape in the second degree to a term of incarceration of 2 to 7 years ( see, e.g., People v. Wingate, 225 A.D.2d 1085, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 970; People v. Lozado, 180 A.D.2d 410, 411).

We have considered the contentions raised in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.