People v. Quiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quiles

115 A.D.3d 680, 981 N.Y.S.2d 541

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 680 (People v. Quiles) 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. Quiles, 115 A.D.3d 680, 981 N.Y.S.2d 541 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered May 13, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree because there was no evidence that he knew the property was stolen (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]) and, in any event, there is no merit to the contention. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was also legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The recent and exclusive [681]*681possession of the fruits of a crime, if unexplained or falsely-explained, will justify the inference that the possessor is the thief (see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 382-384 [1983]; People v Galbo, 218 NY 283, 290 [1916]). Here, the trial court reasonably inferred the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree from his recent, exclusive, and falsely explained possession of stolen property (see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d at 382; People v Chandler, 104 AD3d 618, 619 [2013]; People v Merritt, 96 AD3d 1169, 1171 [2012]; People v Torres, 231 AD2d 594, 594 [1996]; People v Adams, 163 AD2d 481, 482 [1990]).

Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered May 13, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree because there was no evidence that he knew the property was stolen (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]) and, in any event, there is no merit to the contention. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was also legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The recent and exclusive [681]*681possession of the fruits of a crime, if unexplained or falsely-explained, will justify the inference that the possessor is the thief (see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 382-384 [1983]; People v Galbo, 218 NY 283, 290 [1916]). Here, the trial court reasonably inferred the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree from his recent, exclusive, and falsely explained possession of stolen property (see People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d at 382; People v Chandler, 104 AD3d 618, 619 [2013]; People v Merritt, 96 AD3d 1169, 1171 [2012]; People v Torres, 231 AD2d 594, 594 [1996]; People v Adams, 163 AD2d 481, 482 [1990]).

Rivera, J.E, Leventhal, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 680, 981 N.Y.S.2d 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quiles-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack