People v. Oppenheimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oppenheimer

240 A.D.2d 437, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928

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

DecidedJune 2, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 437 (People v. Oppenheimer) 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. Oppenheimer, 240 A.D.2d 437, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.), rendered June 24, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 15 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of robbery in the first degree, 10 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, and 12 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree.

[438]*438Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed upon the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree under the second count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing on that count in compliance with Penal Law §§ 60.05 and 70.06.

The defense counsel’s failure to take action on the defendant’s desire to testify before the Grand Jury does, not, on this record, amount to the denial of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872; People v Rogers, 228 AD2d 623; People v Sturgis, 199 AD2d 549; cf., People v Jimenez, 180 AD2d 757).

However, as the People correctly concede, the defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender upon his conviction for grand larceny in the third degree, when he should have been sentenced as a second felony offender on that count (see, Penal Law §§ 60.05, 70.06). Therefore, the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for proper sentencing on that count. The sentences imposed on the remaining counts were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either not properly before this Court on appeal (see, People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593; People v Armstrong, 237 AD2d 452; People v Grossfeld, 216 AD2d 319), or are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.), rendered June 24, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 15 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of robbery in the first degree, 10 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, and 12 years to life imprisonment on the conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree.

[438]*438Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed upon the conviction of grand larceny in the third degree under the second count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for resentencing on that count in compliance with Penal Law §§ 60.05 and 70.06.

The defense counsel’s failure to take action on the defendant’s desire to testify before the Grand Jury does, not, on this record, amount to the denial of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872; People v Rogers, 228 AD2d 623; People v Sturgis, 199 AD2d 549; cf., People v Jimenez, 180 AD2d 757).

However, as the People correctly concede, the defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender upon his conviction for grand larceny in the third degree, when he should have been sentenced as a second felony offender on that count (see, Penal Law §§ 60.05, 70.06). Therefore, the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for proper sentencing on that count. The sentences imposed on the remaining counts were not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either not properly before this Court on appeal (see, People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593; People v Armstrong, 237 AD2d 452; People v Grossfeld, 216 AD2d 319), or are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 437, 658 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oppenheimer-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack