People v. Stubbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stubbs

281 A.D.2d 498, 721 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[499] fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the defendant did not request a hearing to fix the amount of restitution and the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding as to the out-of-pocket loss he caused, the County Court properly fixed the amount of restitution without holding a hearing (see, People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407). The amount of restitution was not excessive because “the ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event” (Hughey v United States, 495 US 411, 416; see also, People v Purcell, 161 AD2d 812).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[499] fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered February 11, 1999, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the defendant did not request a hearing to fix the amount of restitution and the record contained sufficient evidence to support a finding as to the out-of-pocket loss he caused, the County Court properly fixed the amount of restitution without holding a hearing (see, People v Kim, 91 NY2d 407). The amount of restitution was not excessive because “the ordinary meaning of ‘restitution’ is restoring someone to a position he occupied before a particular event” (Hughey v United States, 495 US 411, 416; see also, People v Purcell, 161 AD2d 812).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

People v. Stubbs, 281 A.D.2d 498, 721 N.Y.S.2d 562, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Stubbs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related