People v. Truitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Truitt

279 A.D.2d 642, 719 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 642 (People v. Truitt) 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. Truitt, 279 A.D.2d 642, 719 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the de[643]*643fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the first degree because the prosecution did not prove ownership of the stolen property (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; see also, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, 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 on that charge.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, 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[643]*643fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 29, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the first degree because the prosecution did not prove ownership of the stolen property (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; see also, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, 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 on that charge.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 642, 719 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-truitt-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack