People v. Crosby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crosby

265 A.D.2d 858, 696 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9939

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 858 (People v. Crosby) 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. Crosby, 265 A.D.2d 858, 696 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9939 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: The verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Given that this was a calculated, execution-style killing, the imposition of the maximum terms for defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We modify the judgment, however, by providing that the sentences run concurrently. The evidence adduced at trial did not establish “that for any period prior to the shooting, defendant possessed the gun with an intent distinct from his specific intent at the time of the shooting * * * such that a possessory crime would have been complete prior to the shooting” (People v Pena, 259 AD2d 394, 395; cf., People v Fernandez, 262 AD2d 170; see generally, People v Salcedo, 92 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: The verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Given that this was a calculated, execution-style killing, the imposition of the maximum terms for defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03) did not constitute an abuse of discretion. We modify the judgment, however, by providing that the sentences run concurrently. The evidence adduced at trial did not establish “that for any period prior to the shooting, defendant possessed the gun with an intent distinct from his specific intent at the time of the shooting * * * such that a possessory crime would have been complete prior to the shooting” (People v Pena, 259 AD2d 394, 395; cf., People v Fernandez, 262 AD2d 170; see generally, People v Salcedo, 92 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 858, 696 N.Y.S.2d 596, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crosby-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack