People v. Orange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Orange

251 A.D.2d 238, 673 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7714

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 25, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered January 11, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4 to 8 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence, including the circumstances of the entry and defendant’s flight from the police, from which the jury could infer that defendant entered his neighbor’s apartment with the intent to commit a crime therein, while rejecting the implausible explanation suggested by the testimony of the defense witness (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375).

Since defendant received the minimum sentence authorized by law, his request for discretionary review of his sentence is meritless (CPL 470.20 [6]). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered January 11, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 4 to 8 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence, including the circumstances of the entry and defendant’s flight from the police, from which the jury could infer that defendant entered his neighbor’s apartment with the intent to commit a crime therein, while rejecting the implausible explanation suggested by the testimony of the defense witness (see, People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375).

Since defendant received the minimum sentence authorized by law, his request for discretionary review of his sentence is meritless (CPL 470.20 [6]). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Orange, 251 A.D.2d 238, 673 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

251 A.D.2d 238 (People v. Orange) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related