From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1991
171 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 18, 1991

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


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree to criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing.

As the People concede, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the stolen automobile had a value in excess of $3,000, which is required to support a conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 165.50). However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620; People v Burton, 150 A.D.2d 788), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree. The evidence establishes that the automobile had a value in excess of $1,000. Accordingly, the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree should be reduced to one of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (see, Penal Law § 165.45; People v Cromwell, 150 A.D.2d 715; People v Funchess, 137 A.D.2d 831; People v Gaines, 136 A.D.2d 731, 734).

Since the defendant failed to object at trial to the introduction of evidence which allegedly referred to uncharged crimes, the issue has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the errors, if any, were harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).

The defendant's contentions concerning allegedly improper remarks made during the prosecutor's summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit.

We further find that defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1991
171 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Harris

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILBERT HARRIS…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)