People v. Bowens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bowens

120 A.D.3d 1148, 992 N.Y.S.2d 881

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 30, 2014

Docket13049 1711/12

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1148 (People v. Bowens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bowens, 120 A.D.3d 1148, 992 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

*1149 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered December 11, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s accessorial liability could be reasonably inferred from the entire course of conduct of defendant and his codefendant before, during and after the crime, along with defendant’s damaging admissions (see generally Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]).

The sentencing court properly adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Not only was defendant’s predicate felony (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [4]) classified as a violent felony at the time of that conviction in 2003 (see People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 664-666 [1993]), the same crime remained a violent felony at the time of defendant’s second violent felony offender adjudication, albeit as the result of a recodification (see Penal Law § 265.03 [3]; William C. Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 265.00 at 413). Defendant’s ex post facto argument is without merit.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Moskowitz, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1149 Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered December 11, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s accessorial liability could be reasonably inferred from the entire course of conduct of defendant and his codefendant before, during and after the crime, along with defendant’s damaging admissions (see generally Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]).

The sentencing court properly adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Not only was defendant’s predicate felony (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [4]) classified as a violent felony at the time of that conviction in 2003 (see People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 664-666 [1993]), the same crime remained a violent felony at the time of defendant’s second violent felony offender adjudication, albeit as the result of a recodification (see Penal Law § 265.03 [3]; William C. Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 265.00 at 413). Defendant’s ex post facto argument is without merit.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Andrias, Moskowitz, ManzanetDaniels and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1148, 992 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowens-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack