People v. Faulks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Faulks

46 A.D.3d 1447, 847 N.Y.S.2d 489

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1447 (People v. Faulks) 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. Faulks, 46 A.D.3d 1447, 847 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Angelo J. Morinello, J.), rendered December 23, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict with respect to the burglary count is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). County Court was entitled to infer “[t]he element of larcenous intent ‘. . . from [1448]*1448the circumstances of the entry’ . . . and from the theft completed inside the [victim’s apartment]” (People v Tricic, 34 AD3d 1319, 1320 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 850 [2007], quoting People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 362 n 1 [1989]; see also People v Ramirez, 278 AD2d 897 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 833 [2001]). Contrary to the further contentions of defendant, he received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Angelo J. Morinello, J.), rendered December 23, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict with respect to the burglary count is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). County Court was entitled to infer “[t]he element of larcenous intent ‘. . . from [1448]*1448the circumstances of the entry’ . . . and from the theft completed inside the [victim’s apartment]” (People v Tricic, 34 AD3d 1319, 1320 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 850 [2007], quoting People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 362 n 1 [1989]; see also People v Ramirez, 278 AD2d 897 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 833 [2001]). Contrary to the further contentions of defendant, he received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1447, 847 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-faulks-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack