People v. Wiley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wiley

213 A.D.2d 1075, 625 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1075 (People v. Wiley) 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. Wiley, 213 A.D.2d 1075, 625 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his threatened use of force was not sufficiently proximate in time to his taking of property to constitute threatening the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of retaining property "immediately after the taking” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]). We disagree (see, People v Dekle, 83 AD2d 522, affd 56 NY2d 835; People v Johnstone, 131 AD2d 782, lv denied 70 NY2d 800). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his threatened use of force was not sufficiently proximate in time to his taking of property to constitute threatening the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of retaining property "immediately after the taking” (Penal Law § 160.00 [1]). We disagree (see, People v Dekle, 83 AD2d 522, affd 56 NY2d 835; People v Johnstone, 131 AD2d 782, lv denied 70 NY2d 800). Defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1075, 625 N.Y.S.2d 987, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wiley-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack