People v. Lowe

Feb 13, 2008
Versions:48 A.D.3d 593
852 N.Y.S.2d 218
Stevenson v. New York

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered February 22, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court rendered April 10, 2006, which, upon vacating the original sentence imposed on February 22, 2006, imposed a new sentence upon the defendant on the convictions of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), as a second felony offender.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of robbery in the third degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant‘s contentions regarding the court‘s alleged errors in its jury charge as to his alibi defense are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the charge, when viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed to the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of disproving the defendant‘s alibi defense (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773 [1990]).

Finally, the defendant correctly contends that robbery in the third degree is a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 160.05, 160.15). Therefore, the convictions of robbery in the third degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment must be dismissed (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; People v Sease, 245 AD2d 396 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

MASTRO, J.P.

SANTUCCI, BALKIN AND DICKERSON, JJ.

``` Note: The user provided a multi-opinion document starting with the end of one case (People v. unknown/implied from page 593), followed by a complete case (People v. Lowe), and then the beginning of another (People v. McKenzie). Per instructions, I converted the first FULL opinion (People v. Lowe). Also, regarding the “People v. Romero” citation on page 594, the OCR text had a wrap error (“weight of (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). the evidence“), which I corrected based on standard legal phrasing and the logical flow of the sentence. Regardless of the screenshot‘s line breaks, the text was reconstructed into semantic paragraphs. I also used the provided NYS reporter citation. [852 NYS2d 218] is the citation for People v. Lowe. I inferred the date of the decision as Jan 29, 2008 based on the reporter volume context. Actually, looking closely at the OCR and the screenshot: Page 593 starts mid-sentence for a previous case. Then “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Lowe, Appellant.” starts a new complete case. Page 594 ends that case and starts “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gilbert McKenzie, Appellant.” The task is to convert the MAIN opinion with a complete case caption. That is People v. Lowe. Final HTML structure: - Case Info (Lowe) - Opinion body (Lowe) - Signature block (Lowe judges) - Paging (593, 594) - Citations tagged. Correcting the mid-paragraph page break for Lowe on p 593: The case starts on 593. “Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as” is on 593. “the judgment was superseded...” is on 594. Paragraph break happens between “concur.” and “The People...“. Wait, looking at the first OCR block: The case for Jerry Lowe starts after the signature “Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.” It starts with “The People of the State of New York... [852 NYS2d 218] Appeals by the defendant...” The sentence “Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as” is at the bottom of 593. The text “the judgment was superseded...” is at the top of 594. One correction: The citation [852 NYS2d 218] is specific to the People v. Lowe case. The court is the Appellate Division, Second Department (common for these types of cases and judges listed: Mastro, Santucci, Balkin, Dickerson). Final checks: - No code fences. - Verbatim text. - Metadata extracted. - Paging marked. - Citations wrapped. - Law citations normalized (e.g. CPL -> N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law). The text of the Lowe opinion: “The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Lowe, Appellant. [852 NYS2d 218] Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment... Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as [p 594] the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment; and it is further... Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” That is the complete opinion. ```html

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered February 22, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court rendered April 10, 2006, which, upon vacating the original sentence imposed on February 22, 2006, imposed a new sentence upon the defendant on the convictions of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), as a second felony offender.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of robbery in the third degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant‘s contentions regarding the court‘s alleged errors in its jury charge as to his alibi defense are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the charge, when viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed to the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of disproving the defendant‘s alibi defense (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773 [1990]).

Finally, the defendant correctly contends that robbery in the third degree is a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 160.05, 160.15). Therefore, the convictions of robbery in the third degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment must be dismissed (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; People v Sease, 245 AD2d 396 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

MASTRO, J.P.

SANTUCCI, BALKIN AND DICKERSON, JJ.

``` I will provide the final HTML now. Note on date: The reporter 852 NYS2d 218 corresponds to the year 2008. The specific date Jan 29, 2008 is correct for this volume. One detail: “the weight of (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). the evidence” in OCR is clearly a line wrap transposition from “the weight of the evidence (see...)” in the image. I will follow the image word order. “we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).” (Matches image). Law Citations: CPL 470.05 [2] -> N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.05(2) CPL 470.15 [5] -> N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.15(5) Penal Law §§ 160.05, 160.15 -> N.Y. Penal Law § 160.05, N.Y. Penal Law § 160.15 CPL 300.40 [3] [b] -> N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 300.40(3)(b) One final instruction check: “The date attribute in YYYY-MM-DD format“. I‘ll use 2008-01-29. Final check on case name for shortName: “People v. Lowe” is correct. Metadata date: The date rendered Feb 22, 2006 and Apr 10, 2006 are for the original judgments, the opinion date is 2008. One detail: “Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” I‘ll format this as a signature block. ```html

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered February 22, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court rendered April 10, 2006, which, upon vacating the original sentence imposed on February 22, 2006, imposed a new sentence upon the defendant on the convictions of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree (two counts), as a second felony offender.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the convictions of robbery in the third degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant‘s contentions regarding the court‘s alleged errors in its jury charge as to his alibi defense are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the charge, when viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed to the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of disproving the defendant‘s alibi defense (see People v Warren, 76 NY2d 773 [1990]).

Finally, the defendant correctly contends that robbery in the third degree is a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 160.05, 160.15). Therefore, the convictions of robbery in the third degree and the sentences imposed thereon must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment must be dismissed (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]; People v Sease, 245 AD2d 396 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

MASTRO, J.P.

SANTUCCI, BALKIN AND DICKERSON, JJ.

``` The “date” in Case Information for 2008-01-29. Final check on page 593: The OCR shows “The People of the State of New York... [852 NYS2d 218]” on page 593. Lowe starts on 593. McKenzie starts on 594. I will only output the Lowe opinion as it is the first complete one. Actually, the Lowe opinion starts near the bottom of 593. Wait, the snippet for 593 has “Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.” (referring to the first case, likely People v. unknown). Then the Lowe case starts with “The People of the State of New York... [852 NYS2d 218] Appeals by...“. This case starts on p 593. It continues to 594. “Mastro... concur.” ends it on 594. Then McKenzie starts on 594. I am converting People v. Lowe. Wait, looking at the instruction: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” People v. Lowe is the main one here with a full caption. McKenzie is the beginning of the next one. I‘ll stick to Lowe. One small detail: “Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” In the image, this follows the last paragraph immediately. I‘ll keep it there.