Mingo v. Fischer

We affirm on the merits. Petitioner concedes that the trial court ordered his sentences on counts one and two to run consecutively. Nevertheless, he argues that because the court al*1052legedly did not specify how the sentences on counts three and four were to run in relation to counts one and two, all sentences should run concurrently pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (1) (a). We disagree. Even assuming, arguendo, that the sentencing court did not sufficiently specify whether counts three and four were to run concurrently or consecutively to counts one and two, this would not affect the court’s…