People v. Haire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haire

35 A.D.3d 236, 824 N.Y.S.2d 708

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

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A.D.3d 236 (People v. Haire) 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. Haire, 35 A.D.3d 236, 824 N.Y.S.2d 708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J), rendered February 2, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The court’s main and supplemental charges to the jury, viewed as a whole, conveyed the correct legal principles regarding the element of intent to use a weapon unlawfully, as applicable to the facts (see People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28, 33-34 [2006]).

As the People concede, since the crime was committed before the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed.

We find no basis to disturb the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J), rendered February 2, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The court’s main and supplemental charges to the jury, viewed as a whole, conveyed the correct legal principles regarding the element of intent to use a weapon unlawfully, as applicable to the facts (see People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28, 33-34 [2006]).

As the People concede, since the crime was committed before the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed.

We find no basis to disturb the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 236, 824 N.Y.S.2d 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haire-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack