Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

124 A.D.2d 742

People v. Desir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1986-11-17

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1992

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*743The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a jury, that the defendant burglarized the apartment of Louisianna Millen and stole certain items of jewelry. The only evidence regarding the value of that jewelry was Ms. Millen’s testimony that she purchased two items for approximately $330. As conceded by the People, this did not establish that the value of the jewelry exceeded $250 and accordingly the convictions have been modified (see, People v Jackson, 111 AD2d 253; People v Womble, 111 AD2d 283). As the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, there is no need to remit for resentencing (see, People v Giles, 121 AD2d 738; People v Womble, supra).

¶2The sentence imposed for the conviction for burglary in the second degree was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

/124/ad2d/742 · .json · Public domain