People v. Davila

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Davila

181 A.D.2d 582, 582 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3987

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 582 (People v. Davila) 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. Davila, 181 A.D.2d 582, 582 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered January 22, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3 Vi to 7 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

At 4:20 a.m., two police officers, observed defendant removing the change from a cash register of a dry cleaning store. [583]*583Except for a broken gate leading to the basement area, the store was otherwise closed. Defendant was eventually apprehended in the basement of the store, with $21.90 in change on his person; other items were stacked near the broken gate.

In view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including not only circumstantial evidence of an unlawful entry (a broken gate) and an intent to take property (items stacked up near where defendant had entered), but also the police officers’ actual observation of defendant taking change from the cash register, under no rational view of the evidence could it be said that defendant’s intent to commit the crime was an afterthought to his unlawful entry. Thus, any unpreserved error in the court’s charge relating to "unlawful remaining” (see, People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358) would not warrant reversal (People v Santana, 172 AD2d 299, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000). Concur — Sullivan, 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, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered January 22, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 3 Vi to 7 years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

At 4:20 a.m., two police officers, observed defendant removing the change from a cash register of a dry cleaning store. [583]*583Except for a broken gate leading to the basement area, the store was otherwise closed. Defendant was eventually apprehended in the basement of the store, with $21.90 in change on his person; other items were stacked near the broken gate.

In view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including not only circumstantial evidence of an unlawful entry (a broken gate) and an intent to take property (items stacked up near where defendant had entered), but also the police officers’ actual observation of defendant taking change from the cash register, under no rational view of the evidence could it be said that defendant’s intent to commit the crime was an afterthought to his unlawful entry. Thus, any unpreserved error in the court’s charge relating to "unlawful remaining” (see, People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358) would not warrant reversal (People v Santana, 172 AD2d 299, lv denied 77 NY2d 1000). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 582, 582 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-davila-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack