People v. Battles, 942 N.E.2d 1026

Battles poured gasoline on multiple individuals in a crack cocaine den apartment, ignited a fire, causing Ronald Davis to die and others to suffer severe burns.
He was convicted after a jury trial of depraved indifference murder, second-degree manslaughter, and three counts of depraved indifference assault.
Sentenced as a persistent felony offender to 25-to-life for murder and manslaughter, plus 25-to-life consecutive for two assault counts and 20-to-life consecutive for the third, totaling 95-to-life.
Appellate Division vacated the manslaughter conviction and affirmed the rest; preserved Apprendi challenge but rejected the consecutive-sentencing claim.
This Court modified the judgment, holding that consecutive sentences were permissible for three victims but the Wheeler count must run concurrent, and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion.
Defendant pro se challenges regarding Apprendi and PFO sentencing denied as meritless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were proper under 70.25(2).	Battles; that the same single act caused the fire; thus concurrent sentences required.	People; separate acts created gravest risk to different victims justify consecutive sentences.	Consecutive sentences proper for three victims; Wheeler concurrent.
Whether the persistent felony offender sentence violates Apprendi.	Apprendi required jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt for enhancements.	New York scheme valid under prior decisions; status based on prior convictions; enhancements within statute.	Apprendi issues persist; the Court finds constitutional concerns; remands/notes potential invalidity of scheme.

People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640 (1996) (determine actus reus for 70.25(2) and whether concurrent sentencing applies)
People v Rosas, 8 NY3d 493 (2007) (single act theory; concurrent for multiple death counts; actus reus focus)
People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444 (1996) (overlapping elements; separate and distinct acts may permit consecutive sentencing)
People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 (2001) (persistent felony offender enhancements; APprendi-like issues)
People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116 (2009) (Apprendi-like concerns with persistent felony offender scheme; preserved challenges discussed)
Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 (2005) (upholding PFO scheme before Blakely; later criticized in light of Apprendi/Blakely)