People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daniels

180 A.D.2d 567, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 25, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered July 13, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal mischief in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The proof at trial was adequate to establish the value of the damage that defendant caused, the documentary evidence showing that cost of replacing the broken window was nearly $2,900 (see, People v Simpson, 132 AD2d 894, 895, lv denied 70 NY2d 937, citing 8 Zett, NY Crim Pro, Penal Law ¶ 73.2 [2]). And, in light of this uncontroverted evidence regarding the cost of the repair, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would have supported a conviction on the lesser charge of criminal mischief in the third degree, but not the greater charge for which defendant now stands convicted (People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61).

We have considered defendant’s argument that his sentence is excessive and find it to be without merit in view of, inter alia, defendant’s lengthy criminal record involving numerous similar and other crimes. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered July 13, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal mischief in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The proof at trial was adequate to establish the value of the damage that defendant caused, the documentary evidence showing that cost of replacing the broken window was nearly $2,900 (see, People v Simpson, 132 AD2d 894, 895, lv denied 70 NY2d 937, citing 8 Zett, NY Crim Pro, Penal Law ¶ 73.2 [2]). And, in light of this uncontroverted evidence regarding the cost of the repair, there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would have supported a conviction on the lesser charge of criminal mischief in the third degree, but not the greater charge for which defendant now stands convicted (People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61).

We have considered defendant’s argument that his sentence is excessive and find it to be without merit in view of, inter alia, defendant’s lengthy criminal record involving numerous similar and other crimes. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Daniels, 180 A.D.2d 567, 580 N.Y.S.2d 1004, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

180 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Daniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related