People v. Hackworth

6 A.D.3d 1064, 775 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6112
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 1064 (People v. Hackworth) 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. Hackworth, 6 A.D.3d 1064, 775 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered April 26, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree, robbery in the second degree, and robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing count four of the indictment and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1]), and robbery in the third degree (§ 160.05). Defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is unpreserved for our review (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). We reject defendant’s further contention that the judgment of conviction should be reversed based on prosecutorial misconduct (cf. People v Mott, 94 AD2d 415 [1983]). However, we agree with defendant, and the People concede, that count four of the indictment charging rob[1065]*1065bery in the third degree must be dismissed because that crime is a lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]), and thus we modify the judgment accordingly. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Pine, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Harris
115 A.D.3d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Coleman
37 A.D.3d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Miller
845 N.E.2d 451 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Hart
26 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 A.D.3d 1064, 775 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hackworth-nyappdiv-2004.