People v. Lamica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lamica

53 A.D.3d 1109, 862 N.Y.S.2d 685

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 1109 (People v. Lamica) 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. Lamica, 53 A.D.3d 1109, 862 N.Y.S.2d 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (William J. Watson, A.J.), rendered May 30, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to establish defendant’s intent to deprive the victim of his property, based on defendant’s intoxication. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not “ ‘specifically directed’ ” at that alleged deficiency in the evidence (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although defendant preserved for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to establish the physical force element of robbery in the third degree, we conclude that his contention lacks merit (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant’s further [1110]*1110contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007] ; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (William J. Watson, A.J.), rendered May 30, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to establish defendant’s intent to deprive the victim of his property, based on defendant’s intoxication. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not “ ‘specifically directed’ ” at that alleged deficiency in the evidence (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although defendant preserved for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to establish the physical force element of robbery in the third degree, we conclude that his contention lacks merit (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant’s further [1110]*1110contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007] ; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.3d 1109, 862 N.Y.S.2d 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lamica-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack