People v. Oliphant

127 A.D.2d 802, 512 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43288
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 17, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 A.D.2d 802 (People v. Oliphant) 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. Oliphant, 127 A.D.2d 802, 512 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rubin, J.), rendered June 28, 1983, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, criminal mischief in the second degree, possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal trespass in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the conviction of attempted grand larceny in the second degree to one of attempted petit larceny, and by reducing the conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree to criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and vacating the sentences imposed thereon. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As in the case of the codefendant, Jerald Butler, we have [803]*803modified the judgment herein by reducing the defendant’s conviction of attempted grand larceny in the second degree to one of attempted petit larceny, and by reducing the conviction of criminal mischief in the second degree to one of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, on the basis of an absence of competent nonhearsay testimony as to the value of the cables which were stolen in this case (see, People v Butler, 123 AD2d 877).

There is no need to remit for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could have been sentenced on the attempted petit larceny and criminal mischief in the fourth degree convictions (see, People v Womble, 111 AD2d 283; People v Cahill, 83 AD2d 589).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, NiehofF and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Humes
16 A.D.3d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Quinn
186 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Williams
172 A.D.2d 706 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 A.D.2d 802, 512 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliphant-nyappdiv-1987.