People v. Small

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Small

118 A.D.3d 1349, 986 N.Y.S.2d 901

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Small. Read the opinion of the Court — 110 A.D.3d 1138 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 13, 2014·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (James A.W McLeod, A.J.), rendered September 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). Defendant raises contentions identical to those raised by his codefendant on his appeal (People v Robinson, 111 AD3d 1358 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1141 [2014]), and “defendant has failed to offer any persuasive reason for this [C]ourt to depart from its prior determination[s] of [those] issue[s]” (People v Thomas, 177 AD2d 728, 728 [1991], [1350]*1350lv denied 79 NY2d 1055 [1992]). We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in our decision in Robinson, and add only that defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (James A.W McLeod, A.J.), rendered September 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]). Defendant raises contentions identical to those raised by his codefendant on his appeal (People v Robinson, 111 AD3d 1358 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1141 [2014]), and “defendant has failed to offer any persuasive reason for this [C]ourt to depart from its prior determination[s] of [those] issue[s]” (People v Thomas, 177 AD2d 728, 728 [1991], [1350]*1350lv denied 79 NY2d 1055 [1992]). We therefore affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in our decision in Robinson, and add only that defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

People v. Small, 118 A.D.3d 1349, 986 N.Y.S.2d 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

118 A.D.3d 1349 (People v. Small) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related