People v. Hales

163 A.D.2d 903, 559 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9625

This text of 163 A.D.2d 903 (People v. Hales) 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. Hales, 163 A.D.2d 903, 559 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The accomplice’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence that defendant was in front of the store while the burglar alarm was sounding, that he ran to his car and drove off with another person as the police approached, and that he was in possession of the fruits of the burglary when apprehended minutes later (see, CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Pasciuta, 104 AD2d 1010).

Defendant’s request that we exercise our discretionary power to modify the sentence is devoid of merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J.—burglary, third degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Pasciuta
104 A.D.2d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 A.D.2d 903, 559 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hales-nyappdiv-1990.