People v. Sharp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sharp

39 A.D.3d 261, 831 N.Y.S.2d 712

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

DecidedApril 5, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 261 (People v. Sharp) 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. Sharp, 39 A.D.3d 261, 831 N.Y.S.2d 712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered October 12, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [262]*262burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 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]). Moreover, we find the evidence to be overwhelming. Defendant’s unlawful entry into a store with intent to commit a crime therein was established by his own statements to the arresting officer, as well as by the officer’s observations and the surrounding circumstances.

Any error regarding the prosecutor’s summation was harmless. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered October 12, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [262]*262burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 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]). Moreover, we find the evidence to be overwhelming. Defendant’s unlawful entry into a store with intent to commit a crime therein was established by his own statements to the arresting officer, as well as by the officer’s observations and the surrounding circumstances.

Any error regarding the prosecutor’s summation was harmless. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 261, 831 N.Y.S.2d 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sharp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack