People v. Byrd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Byrd

270 A.D.2d 356, 704 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2675

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 356 (People v. Byrd) 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. Byrd, 270 A.D.2d 356, 704 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered October 27, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon his conviction of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of burglary in the first degree, the defendant was found to be a persistent felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.10 (1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court sufficiently stated its reasons for treating him as a persistent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; cf., People v Smith, 232 AD2d 586).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered October 27, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon his conviction of two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of burglary in the first degree, the defendant was found to be a persistent felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.10 (1). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court sufficiently stated its reasons for treating him as a persistent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; cf., People v Smith, 232 AD2d 586).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 356, 704 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-byrd-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack