People v. Horrego

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Horrego

280 A.D.2d 555, 720 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1776

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 2001·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered August 30, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction because the testimony of his [556]*556accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated (see, CPL 60.22 [1]). However, since he failed to move before the County Court to dismiss the indictment on this specific ground, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Durant, 186 AD2d 673; People v Coico, 176 AD2d 339). In any event, we find that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect the defendant to the commission of the crimes of which he was convicted (see, CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286; People v White, 169 AD2d 798; see also, People v Gomez, 160 AD2d 399).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, 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 County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered August 30, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction because the testimony of his [556]*556accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated (see, CPL 60.22 [1]). However, since he failed to move before the County Court to dismiss the indictment on this specific ground, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Durant, 186 AD2d 673; People v Coico, 176 AD2d 339). In any event, we find that the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence tending to connect the defendant to the commission of the crimes of which he was convicted (see, CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286; People v White, 169 AD2d 798; see also, People v Gomez, 160 AD2d 399).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

People v. Horrego, 280 A.D.2d 555, 720 N.Y.S.2d 390, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1776 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 555 (People v. Horrego) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related