People v. ScarbroughPeople v. Scarbrough
Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends that his second trial was barred by double jeopardy. Because defense counsel consented to County Court’s declaration of a mistrial after the jury was sworn in defendant’s first trial, defendant has waived any double jeopardy claim (see, People v Ferguson,
We likewise reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Upon our review of the law, facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Satterfield,
The sentences of consecutive terms of incarceration are unduly harsh. We modify the judgment, therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by providing that the sentences run concurrently. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.