People v. Clendinen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clendinen

173 A.D.2d 366, 569 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7311

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

DecidedMay 23, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 366 (People v. Clendinen) 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. Clendinen, 173 A.D.2d 366, 569 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered November 15, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of robbery committed on a subway [367]*367platform. Immediately apprehended by bystanders, defendant admitted planning and committing the robbery with two accomplices. At a pretrial hearing to contest admissibility of his statement, defense counsel contended that he was not provided with adequate notice beyond a skeletal synopsis of his statement contained in the voluntary disclosure form. The prosecutor countered, relying on notes in his trial folder that full notice of the entire statement was provided at arraignment. Counsel never rebutted this representation with arraignment minutes at the hearing, and defendant has failed to provide such minutes on appeal. Since it was defendant’s obligation to provide this Court with a full record upon which it could evaluate his claim (People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 320), no reviewable issue has been presented for our consideration.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and indulging all reasonable inferences in the People’s favor (People v Alexander, 75 NY2d 979, 980), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant forcibly stole property, aided by another person actually present (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) who was ready, willing and able to participate in the robbery (People v Hedgeman, 70 NY2d 533, 541), by aiding in the retention of the property (People v Velez, 155 AD2d 365, lv denied 75 NY2d 819). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered November 15, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of robbery committed on a subway [367]*367platform. Immediately apprehended by bystanders, defendant admitted planning and committing the robbery with two accomplices. At a pretrial hearing to contest admissibility of his statement, defense counsel contended that he was not provided with adequate notice beyond a skeletal synopsis of his statement contained in the voluntary disclosure form. The prosecutor countered, relying on notes in his trial folder that full notice of the entire statement was provided at arraignment. Counsel never rebutted this representation with arraignment minutes at the hearing, and defendant has failed to provide such minutes on appeal. Since it was defendant’s obligation to provide this Court with a full record upon which it could evaluate his claim (People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 320), no reviewable issue has been presented for our consideration.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and indulging all reasonable inferences in the People’s favor (People v Alexander, 75 NY2d 979, 980), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant forcibly stole property, aided by another person actually present (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) who was ready, willing and able to participate in the robbery (People v Hedgeman, 70 NY2d 533, 541), by aiding in the retention of the property (People v Velez, 155 AD2d 365, lv denied 75 NY2d 819). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 366, 569 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clendinen-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack