People v. Ortega (Jose)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ortega (Jose)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 51540(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Ortega (Jose) (People v. Ortega (Jose)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Ortega (Jose), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jose Ortega a/k/a Jorge Ortega, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), rendered February 25, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), rendered February 25, 2014, reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

The misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition charged criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 165.40), upon allegations that defendant possessed "in his hand," a certain Hewlett Packard laptop computer and power cord, and that the "lawful custodian" of these two items never gave defendant "permission or authority to possess or exercise control over said property." We agree with defendant that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally defective, since it failed to allege facts sufficient to establish essential elements of the offense, namely that the property "was stolen by someone" (People v McFarland, 181 AD2d 1007 [1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 1051 [1992], quoting People v Corsetti, 10 AD2d 685 [1960]), and that defendant knew the property was stolen (see Matter of Carlique P., 42 AD3d 367, 369-370 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 15, 2017

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jose Ortega a/k/a Jorge Ortega, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), rendered February 25, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), rendered February 25, 2014, reversed, on the law, and the accusatory instrument is dismissed.

The misdemeanor complaint and supporting deposition charged criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law § 165.40), upon allegations that defendant possessed "in his hand," a certain Hewlett Packard laptop computer and power cord, and that the "lawful custodian" of these two items never gave defendant "permission or authority to possess or exercise control over said property." We agree with defendant that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally defective, since it failed to allege facts sufficient to establish essential elements of the offense, namely that the property "was stolen by someone" (People v McFarland, 181 AD2d 1007 [1992], lv denied 79 NY2d 1051 [1992], quoting People v Corsetti, 10 AD2d 685 [1960]), and that defendant knew the property was stolen (see Matter of Carlique P., 42 AD3d 367, 369-370 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: November 15, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Ortega (Jose), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ortega-jose-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack