People v. Kesick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kesick

162 A.D.2d 964, 559 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 22, 1990·Published

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument that the evidence of intent is insufficient to support his conviction for burglary in the second degree. Defendant’s intent to commit larceny can be inferred from the circumstances of the entry (see, People v Woodard, 148 AD2d 997, 998, Iv denied 14: NY2d 749; People v Caraballo, 138 AD2d 725, 726, Iv denied 71 NY2d 1024). We further conclude that the sentence is not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s argument that the evidence of intent is insufficient to support his conviction for burglary in the second degree. Defendant’s intent to commit larceny can be inferred from the circumstances of the entry (see, People v Woodard, 148 AD2d 997, 998, Iv denied 14: NY2d 749; People v Caraballo, 138 AD2d 725, 726, Iv denied 71 NY2d 1024). We further conclude that the sentence is not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—burglary, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.

People v. Kesick, 162 A.D.2d 964, 559 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

162 A.D.2d 964 (People v. Kesick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related