People v. Henriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henriquez

271 A.D.2d 327, 705 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4367

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

DecidedApril 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 327 (People v. Henriquez) 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. Henriquez, 271 A.D.2d 327, 705 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered March 10, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, 8 to 16 years, and 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury charge on the elements of attempted robbery in the first degree is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that any error in these instructions was harmless in light of the evidence and the issues raised by defendant at trial.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered March 10, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, 8 to 16 years, and 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s jury charge on the elements of attempted robbery in the first degree is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that any error in these instructions was harmless in light of the evidence and the issues raised by defendant at trial.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 327, 705 N.Y.S.2d 893, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henriquez-nyappdiv-2000.