Opinion
15156-15156A Ind. Nos. 1384/16, 4341/16 Case Nos. 2019–3111 2021–02874
01-27-2022
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dimel HICKMAN, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Vincent Rivellese of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Moulton, Scarpulla, Higgitt, JJ.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered on or about February 19, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the third degree, and also convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal insufficiency claims concerning the value of the stolen property are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that there was legally sufficient evidence of value. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence concerning that element (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Store employees provided competent evidence from which the jury could have drawn reasonable inferences that, as to each theft, the value of the merchandise exceeded the statutory threshold (see People v. Irrizari, 5 N.Y.2d 142, 146, 182 N.Y.S.2d 361, 156 N.E.2d 69 [1959] ; People v. Smith, 275 A.D.2d 673, 673, 713 N.Y.S.2d 350 [1st Dept.]lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 969, 722 N.Y.S.2d 487, 745 N.E.2d 407 [2000] ; see also People v. Trilli, 27 A.D.3d 349, 810 N.Y.S.2d 660 [1st Dept.]lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 899, 817 N.Y.S.2d 634, 850 N.E.2d 681 [2006] ).
In light of our affirmance of defendant's conviction after trial, there is no basis for vacatur of his conviction by plea.