From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Giles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1986
121 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

June 30, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).


Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of burglary in the second degree to criminal trespass in the second degree, and vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence most favorably to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was insufficient to support an inference that the defendant entered the subject premises with the intent to commit a crime therein. The People therefore failed to meet their burden of proving every element of the crime of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 140.25). However, the evidence adduced at trial did establish the crime of criminal trespass in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 140.15), which requires no proof of intent, and we have modified the judgment accordingly. There is no need to remit the matter for resentencing since the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could have been sentenced on a criminal trespass conviction (see, People v. Womble, 111 A.D.2d 283; People v. Cahill, 83 A.D.2d 589, 590; People v. Bell, 55 A.D.2d 624).

We have examined the remainder of the defendant's contentions and have found them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Giles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1986
121 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Giles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DWIGHT GILES, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 30, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Desir

The only evidence regarding the value of that jewelry was Ms. Millen's testimony that she purchased two items…