People v. Demarco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Demarco

167 A.D.2d 640, 562 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13277

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 640 (People v. Demarco) 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. Demarco, 167 A.D.2d 640, 562 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 20, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that his prosecution for forgery was barred by the double jeopardy provisions of CPL 40.10 and 40.40. Although the two crimes (burglary and forgery) could be said to have arisen out of one criminal transaction (CPL 40.10 [2]), they were comprised of substantially different elements and were still separate crimes (see, CPL 40.20 [2] [a]; People v Hopkins, 95 AD2d 870). Additionally, the People established that at the time of the previous prosecution for burglary, they did not possess legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for forgery against defendant (CPL 40.40 [2]; see. People v Lindsly, 99 AD2d 99). Therefore, separate prosecutions were permissible and County Court’s refusal to dismiss the forgery indictment was proper.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 20, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that his prosecution for forgery was barred by the double jeopardy provisions of CPL 40.10 and 40.40. Although the two crimes (burglary and forgery) could be said to have arisen out of one criminal transaction (CPL 40.10 [2]), they were comprised of substantially different elements and were still separate crimes (see, CPL 40.20 [2] [a]; People v Hopkins, 95 AD2d 870). Additionally, the People established that at the time of the previous prosecution for burglary, they did not possess legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for forgery against defendant (CPL 40.40 [2]; see. People v Lindsly, 99 AD2d 99). Therefore, separate prosecutions were permissible and County Court’s refusal to dismiss the forgery indictment was proper.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 640, 562 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-demarco-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack