People v. Carelock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carelock

67 A.D.3d 1417, 887 N.Y.S.2d 889

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1417 (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, 67 A.D.3d 1417, 887 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered September 1, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the third degree and attempted petit larceny.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and attempted petit larceny (§§ 110.00, 155.25). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of burglary as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict with respect to that crime is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Centra and Peradotto, 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 (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered September 1, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the third degree and attempted petit larceny.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and attempted petit larceny (§§ 110.00, 155.25). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of burglary as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict with respect to that crime is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 1417, 887 N.Y.S.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carelock-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack