People v. Desir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Desir

124 A.D.2d 742, 508 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62042

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 17, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[743] The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a jury, that the defendant burglarized the apartment of Louisianna Millen and stole certain items of jewelry. The only evidence regarding the value of that jewelry was Ms. Millen’s testimony that she purchased two items for approximately $330. As conceded by the People, this did not establish that the value of the jewelry exceeded $250 and accordingly the convictions have been modified (see, People v Jackson, 111 AD2d 253; People v Womble, 111 AD2d 283). As the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, there is no need to remit for resentencing (see, People v Giles, 121 AD2d 738; People v Womble, supra).

The sentence imposed for the conviction for burglary in the second degree was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

[743] The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a jury, that the defendant burglarized the apartment of Louisianna Millen and stole certain items of jewelry. The only evidence regarding the value of that jewelry was Ms. Millen’s testimony that she purchased two items for approximately $330. As conceded by the People, this did not establish that the value of the jewelry exceeded $250 and accordingly the convictions have been modified (see, People v Jackson, 111 AD2d 253; People v Womble, 111 AD2d 283). As the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, there is no need to remit for resentencing (see, People v Giles, 121 AD2d 738; People v Womble, supra).

The sentence imposed for the conviction for burglary in the second degree was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

People v. Desir, 124 A.D.2d 742, 508 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

124 A.D.2d 742 (People v. Desir) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related