People v. Muhammad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Muhammad

276 A.D.2d 382, 714 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10615

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 276 A.D.2d 382 (People v. Muhammad) 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. Muhammad, 276 A.D.2d 382, 714 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the second degree, attempted criminal trespass in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 years, 90 days and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The requisite intent could be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of defendant’s belligerent efforts to enter the building.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the second degree, attempted criminal trespass in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 years, 90 days and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The requisite intent could be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of defendant’s belligerent efforts to enter the building.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 A.D.2d 382, 714 N.Y.S.2d 674, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-muhammad-nyappdiv-2000.