Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the defendant was convicted in the Supreme Court, New York County, of second-degree burglary, fourth-degree criminal possession of stolen property, and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court imposed concurrent sentences ranging from 1 to 4.5 years for each offense. The conviction was affirmed, and the case was remitted for further proceedings per CPL 460.50 (5). The appellate court upheld the lower court's determination that the defendant consented to a search of his office voluntarily and found the evidence sufficient to support the verdict. The valuation of stolen property was calculated using replacement value due to the lack of a market for the used items concerned, confirming the value exceeded $1,000. Furthermore, the court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a detailed bill of particulars on the intended crime, as he was sufficiently informed of the prosecution's theory of larceny. All judges concurred with the decision, dismissing other arguments raised by the defendant as meritless.
Legal Issues Addressed
Defendant's Right to Bill of Particularssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to a detailed bill of particulars regarding his intended crime, affirming his awareness of the prosecution's theory of intended larceny.
Reasoning: The court ruled that the defendant was not entitled to a detailed bill of particulars regarding his intended crime upon unlawful entry, as he was aware that the prosecution's theory was that he intended to commit larceny.
Sufficiency of Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The evidence presented at trial was deemed legally sufficient and in accordance with the weight of the evidence, supporting the jury's verdict.
Reasoning: The evidence supporting the verdict was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence.
Valuation of Stolen Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In the absence of an established market for used goods, the court applied the replacement value to assess the value of the stolen shoes exceeding $1,000.
Reasoning: The value of the stolen shoes, over $1,000, was assessed using replacement value due to the absence of an established market for used shoes.
Voluntary Consent to Searchsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the defendant voluntarily consented to a search of his office without coercion, upholding the hearing court's finding.
Reasoning: The court found no grounds to challenge the hearing court's determination that the defendant consented to a search of his office without coercion.