People v. Freeman

117 A.D.2d 677, 498 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52951
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 10, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 677 (People v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 117 A.D.2d 677, 498 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.), rendered April 19, 1976, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

[678]*678On appeal, defendant seeks to have his conviction for grand larceny in the third degree reversed on the theory that that crime is an inclusory concurrent count of robbery in the first degree (see, CPL 300.40 [3] [a]). Defendant’s plea of guilty forecloses him from raising this claim (see, People v Walton, 41 NY2d 880).

In any case, grand larceny in the third degree is not a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree, since it is theoretically possible to commit robbery in the first degree (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing grand larceny in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 155.30 [5]), if no property is taken from the person of the victim (see, People v Ford, 91 AD2d 589, revd on other grounds 62 NY2d 275; People v Addison, 73 AD2d 790). Accordingly, had this claim been properly before us, it would have been rejected.

Equally unavailing is defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed was excessive. Since defendant has already served his sentence, the issue is moot. In any event, defendant received the sentence that had previously been agreed upon during plea negotiations. He, therefore, has no cause to complain that the sentence was harsh or excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Cobb
2016 NY Slip Op 8245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Martinez
97 A.D.3d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Velilla
285 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Webb-Payne
234 A.D.2d 403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Sidney
178 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Ramirez
165 A.D.2d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 A.D.2d 677, 498 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-freeman-nyappdiv-1986.