People v. Sherence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sherence

300 A.D.2d 200, 750 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 200 (People v. Sherence) 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. Sherence, 300 A.D.2d 200, 750 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), [201]*201rendered April 3, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s acquittal of two counts of robbery in the first degree does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557). We decline “to intrude into the jury’s deliberative process” (People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7), and we note, in any event, that the jury, which was not instructed on attempted robbery, may have found insufficient proof of a completed robbery.

Defendant never requested submission of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense, and the record fails to support his claim that this issue should be treated as preserved. We decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant was guilty of simply possessing the weapon, without intending to use it unlawfully against the victim (see People v Negron, 91 NY2d 788).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), [201]*201rendered April 3, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Defendant’s acquittal of two counts of robbery in the first degree does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557). We decline “to intrude into the jury’s deliberative process” (People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7), and we note, in any event, that the jury, which was not instructed on attempted robbery, may have found insufficient proof of a completed robbery.

Defendant never requested submission of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense, and the record fails to support his claim that this issue should be treated as preserved. We decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant was guilty of simply possessing the weapon, without intending to use it unlawfully against the victim (see People v Negron, 91 NY2d 788).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 200, 750 N.Y.S.2d 860, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sherence-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack