People v. Burrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burrell

16 A.D.3d 102, 789 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 102 (People v. Burrell) 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. Burrell, 16 A.D.3d 102, 789 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, [103]*103J.), rendered March 13, 2003, convicting defendant Burrell, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered March 20, 2003, convicting defendant Norman, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

As to each defendant, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence, and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, established every element of each of the forms of robbery of which defendants were convicted, including the requisite intent (see Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]), aid by another person present in “seizing or retaining another’s property” (People v Hedgeman, 70 NY2d 533, 541 [1987]), and physical injury to the victim (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

Defendant Burrell’s constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). Burrell’s mandatory sentence was based entirely on his prior convictions (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224 [1998]).

We perceive no basis for reducing Norman’s sentence. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, [103]*103J.), rendered March 13, 2003, convicting defendant Burrell, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered March 20, 2003, convicting defendant Norman, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

As to each defendant, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence, and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, established every element of each of the forms of robbery of which defendants were convicted, including the requisite intent (see Matter of Juan J., 81 NY2d 739 [1992]; People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830 [1988]), aid by another person present in “seizing or retaining another’s property” (People v Hedgeman, 70 NY2d 533, 541 [1987]), and physical injury to the victim (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

Defendant Burrell’s constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). Burrell’s mandatory sentence was based entirely on his prior convictions (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224 [1998]).

We perceive no basis for reducing Norman’s sentence. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 102, 789 N.Y.S.2d 887, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burrell-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack