People v. Carelock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carelock

55 A.D.3d 1371, 864 N.Y.S.2d 362

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 1371 (People v. Carelock) 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. Carelock, 55 A.D.3d 1371, 864 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered March 30, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a bench trial of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Contrary to the contention of defendant with respect to the burglary conviction, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish her unlawful entry into the building in question (see People v Thornton, 4 AD3d 561, 562 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]; People v Francis, 287 AD2d 396, 397 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered March 30, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her following a bench trial of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Contrary to the contention of defendant with respect to the burglary conviction, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish her unlawful entry into the building in question (see People v Thornton, 4 AD3d 561, 562 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]; People v Francis, 287 AD2d 396, 397 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 1371, 864 N.Y.S.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carelock-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack