People v. Coppola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Coppola

154 A.D.2d 546, 546 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12762

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 546 (People v. Coppola) 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. Coppola, 154 A.D.2d 546, 546 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12762 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered June 18, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s claim of error regarding the trial court’s refusal to charge criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense of burglary in the second degree. While it is not disputed that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense as statutorily defined (CPL 1.20 [37]), we are of the opinion that there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which the jury could have found that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see, CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Evans, 135 AD2d 648; People v Woolard, 124 AD2d 763).

The sentence imposed was within the legal range for a second violent felony offender convicted of a class C violent felony offense (Penal Law § 70.04 [3] [b]; [4]). Moreover, the court could properly direct that the instant sentence run consecutively to the sentence imposed on a violation of probation (see, People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93). We do not find that the sentence imposed was either unduly harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, we decline to disturb the exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion in this regard. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Rosenblatt, 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, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered June 18, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s claim of error regarding the trial court’s refusal to charge criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense of burglary in the second degree. While it is not disputed that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense as statutorily defined (CPL 1.20 [37]), we are of the opinion that there was no reasonable view of the evidence under which the jury could have found that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater (see, CPL 300.50 [1]; People v Evans, 135 AD2d 648; People v Woolard, 124 AD2d 763).

The sentence imposed was within the legal range for a second violent felony offender convicted of a class C violent felony offense (Penal Law § 70.04 [3] [b]; [4]). Moreover, the court could properly direct that the instant sentence run consecutively to the sentence imposed on a violation of probation (see, People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93). We do not find that the sentence imposed was either unduly harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case. Therefore, we decline to disturb the exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion in this regard. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kooper and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 546, 546 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-coppola-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack