People v. Stanback

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stanback

122 A.D.2d 818, 505 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59326

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 4, 1986·Published

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered July 27, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, and attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Among the defendant’s arguments on appeal is his contention that the People failed to prove his guilt of the crime of [819] attempted robbery in the third degree. We find, however, that, viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence establishes both that the defendant intended to forcibly steal property from the victim, and that he engaged in conduct which "tend[ed] to effect the commission of’ the robbery (see, Penal Law § 110.00). The courts have repeatedly upheld convictions for attempted robbery where, as in the case under review, the defendant was apprehended before having had chance to seize the victim’s property (see, e.g., People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296; People v Reddy, 108 AD2d 945; People v Eddy, 95 AD2d 956; People v Witkowski, 90 AD2d 723). We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered July 27, 1981, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, and attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Among the defendant’s arguments on appeal is his contention that the People failed to prove his guilt of the crime of [819] attempted robbery in the third degree. We find, however, that, viewed in a light most favorable to the People, the evidence establishes both that the defendant intended to forcibly steal property from the victim, and that he engaged in conduct which "tend[ed] to effect the commission of’ the robbery (see, Penal Law § 110.00). The courts have repeatedly upheld convictions for attempted robbery where, as in the case under review, the defendant was apprehended before having had chance to seize the victim’s property (see, e.g., People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296; People v Reddy, 108 AD2d 945; People v Eddy, 95 AD2d 956; People v Witkowski, 90 AD2d 723). We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Stanback, 122 A.D.2d 818, 505 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

122 A.D.2d 818 (People v. Stanback) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related