People v. Struble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Struble

161 A.D.2d 1145, 555 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9126

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

DecidedMay 11, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 1145 (People v. Struble) 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. Struble, 161 A.D.2d 1145, 555 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) for stealing an automobile from a restaurant parking lot in the Village of Almond. The vehicle was recovered the following day in Tennessee, where defendant was apprehended after being stopped for speeding.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Thompson, 72 NY2d 410, rearg denied 73 NY2d 870), we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). An inference of guilt may be drawn from recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime (see, People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 382). Defendant’s presence in the vicinity of the crime at the time it occurred, coupled with his possession of the stolen automobile in the State of Tennessee on the day following the theft and his admission that he had stolen a car, were sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to enable the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The letter that was received in evidence contained a number of irrelevant and prejudicial remarks which might better have been redacted. In our view, however, the letter was not particularly incriminating and its receipt in evidence did not deny defendant a fair trial.

We find no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewed in its totality, defense counsel’s representation of defendant was "meaningful” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from judgment of Allegany County Court, Sprague, J.—grand larceny, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35) for stealing an automobile from a restaurant parking lot in the Village of Almond. The vehicle was recovered the following day in Tennessee, where defendant was apprehended after being stopped for speeding.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Thompson, 72 NY2d 410, rearg denied 73 NY2d 870), we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). An inference of guilt may be drawn from recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of a crime (see, People v Baskerville, 60 NY2d 374, 382). Defendant’s presence in the vicinity of the crime at the time it occurred, coupled with his possession of the stolen automobile in the State of Tennessee on the day following the theft and his admission that he had stolen a car, were sufficient to establish a prima facie case and to enable the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The letter that was received in evidence contained a number of irrelevant and prejudicial remarks which might better have been redacted. In our view, however, the letter was not particularly incriminating and its receipt in evidence did not deny defendant a fair trial.

We find no merit to defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Viewed in its totality, defense counsel’s representation of defendant was "meaningful” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from judgment of Allegany County Court, Sprague, J.—grand larceny, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 1145, 555 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-struble-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack