People v. Red

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Red

14 A.D.3d 465, 788 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 591

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 465 (People v. Red) 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. Red, 14 A.D.3d 465, 788 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 14, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3x/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of entry into premises with intent to commit a crime therein was established by credible evidence warranting the conclusion that defendant ransacked the store in question (see People v Wilson, 203 AD2d 211 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 835 [1994]).

The court adequately instructed the jury on the requirement of entry with intent to commit a crime (see People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 362 [1989]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 14, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3x/2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of entry into premises with intent to commit a crime therein was established by credible evidence warranting the conclusion that defendant ransacked the store in question (see People v Wilson, 203 AD2d 211 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 835 [1994]).

The court adequately instructed the jury on the requirement of entry with intent to commit a crime (see People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 362 [1989]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 465, 788 N.Y.S.2d 385, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-red-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack