People v. Covington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Covington

130 A.D.3d 409, 13 N.Y.S.3d 54

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

DecidedJuly 2, 2015

Docket15617 5715/10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 409 (People v. Covington) 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. Covington, 130 A.D.3d 409, 13 N.Y.S.3d 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J., at severance motions; Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered January 15, 2013, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 3V2 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the grand larceny conviction to petit larceny and remanding for resentencing on that conviction only, and otherwise affirmed.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s severance motions. The counts relating to the two incidents at issue were properly joined as sufficiently “similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]) to satisfy the principles set forth in People v Pierce (14 NY3d 564, 573-574 [2010]), and defendant did not make a sufficient showing to warrant a discretionary severance (see CPL 200.20 [3]; People v Ford, 11 NY3d 875, 879 [2008]). Defendant’s argument about a variance in the proof of the two incidents is unavailing, particularly given defendant’s reliable confessions to both crimes. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments on the joinder/ severance issue.

*410 We find that the charge as a whole conveyed the proper standards on witness credibility, inconsistencies in testimony, and the concept of reasonable doubt in the deliberative process, and that the isolated phrases challenged by defendant do not require reversal (see People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831-832 [1983]). Although the trial court went beyond the Criminal Jury Instructions, when each of the phrases at issue is viewed in its proper context, we do not find that any of this language was prejudicial or constitutionally deficient.

As the People concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the value element of fourth-degree grand larceny. We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence on the burglary conviction. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J., at severance motions; Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered January 15, 2013, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 3V2 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the grand larceny conviction to petit larceny and remanding for resentencing on that conviction only, and otherwise affirmed.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s severance motions. The counts relating to the two incidents at issue were properly joined as sufficiently “similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]) to satisfy the principles set forth in People v Pierce (14 NY3d 564, 573-574 [2010]), and defendant did not make a sufficient showing to warrant a discretionary severance (see CPL 200.20 [3]; People v Ford, 11 NY3d 875, 879 [2008]). Defendant’s argument about a variance in the proof of the two incidents is unavailing, particularly given defendant’s reliable confessions to both crimes. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments on the joinder/ severance issue.

*410 We find that the charge as a whole conveyed the proper standards on witness credibility, inconsistencies in testimony, and the concept of reasonable doubt in the deliberative process, and that the isolated phrases challenged by defendant do not require reversal (see People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831-832 [1983]). Although the trial court went beyond the Criminal Jury Instructions, when each of the phrases at issue is viewed in its proper context, we do not find that any of this language was prejudicial or constitutionally deficient.

As the People concede, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the value element of fourth-degree grand larceny. We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence on the burglary conviction. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 409, 13 N.Y.S.3d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-covington-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack