People v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jones

246 A.D.2d 398, 666 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D.2d 398 (People v. Jones) 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. Jones, 246 A.D.2d 398, 666 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered April 16, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There was ample evidence of defendant’s forcible retention of the property immediately after the taking. The challenged evidentiary rulings were proper exercises of discretion. In any event, there was no significant possibility that, had the challenged evidence been excluded, the verdict would have been different (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We find no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered April 16, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There was ample evidence of defendant’s forcible retention of the property immediately after the taking. The challenged evidentiary rulings were proper exercises of discretion. In any event, there was no significant possibility that, had the challenged evidence been excluded, the verdict would have been different (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We find no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 398, 666 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jones-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack