People v. Holloman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Holloman

226 A.D.2d 654, 641 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302

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

DecidedApril 22, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 654 (People v. Holloman) 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. Holloman, 226 A.D.2d 654, 641 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 17, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court improperly sentenced him as a second felony offender based on his prior conviction in South Carolina. We disagree. The elements of the South Carolina purse-snatching statute pursuant to which the defendant was convicted are equivalent to the elements of the felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree in New York, and both statutes authorize sentences of more than one year (see, Penal Law § 155.30 [5]; SC Code § 16-13-150; People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586; People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464, 467-468; People v Garrett, 130 AD2d 505, 506). Accordingly, the court properly sentenced the defendant as a second felony offender. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 17, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court improperly sentenced him as a second felony offender based on his prior conviction in South Carolina. We disagree. The elements of the South Carolina purse-snatching statute pursuant to which the defendant was convicted are equivalent to the elements of the felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree in New York, and both statutes authorize sentences of more than one year (see, Penal Law § 155.30 [5]; SC Code § 16-13-150; People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586; People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464, 467-468; People v Garrett, 130 AD2d 505, 506). Accordingly, the court properly sentenced the defendant as a second felony offender. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 654, 641 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-holloman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack