People v. Ramirez

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Monroe

    30 A.D.3d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 21 times

    The proffered testimony of the defendant's guidance counselor concerning the domestic affairs of a witness who had testified against the defendant was sufficiently remote from the issue of that witness's bias or motive to fabricate that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to allow it. The defendant is also incorrect in contending that the Supreme Court erred in failing to charge petit larceny as a lesser-included offense of robbery in the first degree. Although petit larceny is a lesser-included offense of robbery in the first degree ( see People v. Smith, 214 AD2d 971; People v. Ramirez, 165 AD2d 656; see also People v. Wedgeworth, 104 AD2d 915, 916), there is no reasonable view of the evidence here, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, as we must ( see People v. Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705; People v. Wells, 18 AD3d 482; People v. Moreno, 16 AD3d 438), that supports the conclusion that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater ( see CPL 300.50; People v. Asan, 22 NY2d 526, 532-533; People v. Martin, 305 AD2d 427, 428; People v. Gilliam, 300 AD2d 701, 702; People v. France, 216 AD2d 579; see also People v. Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364, 371; People v. Durden, 5 AD3d 333; People v. Williams, 249 AD2d 427, 428; People v. Brown, 243 AD2d 363).

  2. People v. Samuels

    240 A.D.2d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    Counsel's decision not to pursue a Sandoval hearing created no prejudice in this nonjury trial ( People v. Watson, 162 A.D.2d 360). Contrary to defendant's conclusory argument on appeal, we find that counsel vigorously pursued the defense of justification. Defendant's contention concerning the mandatory surcharge is premature ( People v Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881). Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

  3. People v. Davis

    234 A.D.2d 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    The record establishes that the conversation between defendant and a detective prior to the administration of Miranda warnings did not constitute interrogation ( People v Tarleton, 184 AD2d 463). We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Defendant's contention concerning the mandatory surcharge is without merit ( see, People v Ramirez, 165 AD2d 656).

  4. People v. Smith

    214 A.D.2d 971 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 6 times

    Second, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he committed the lesser offense but not the greater (People v Cabassa, 79 N.Y.2d 722, 728-729, cert denied sub nom. Lind v New York, 506 U.S. 1011; CPL 1.20; 300.50 [1]). Because it is impossible to commit robbery without also committing petit larceny (People v Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881), petit larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree. Thus, the first prong of the Glover analysis is satisfied.

  5. People v. Velasquez

    198 A.D.2d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    Defendant's claim that the mandatory surcharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35 should be waived because it would cause him undue hardship is premature. Should defendant, at the end of his prison term, find himself unable to pay the surcharge, he may move for a waiver at that time. Furthermore, the proper procedure for raising a claim of undue hardship is to move for resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5) (People v Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, 657, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881). Finally, defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and we find no circumstances warranting a reduction given defendant's previous criminal record (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302).

  6. People v. Johnson

    197 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    On the merits, the trial court properly denied defendant's request. Although petit larceny may be a lesser included offense of robbery (People v. Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881), here no reasonable view of the evidence could support a finding that defendant was not part of the group that used force in shoving the victim, tore at his pocket, and some of whom assumed a boxing stance to ward off the passersby who attempted to intercede (see, People v Cabassa, 79 N.Y.2d 722, 728-729). Even had there been no testimony that defendant himself had engaged in such conduct, he was clearly accessorily responsible for the use of force by his accomplices, as the trial court instructed.

  7. People v. Deas

    176 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.). Defendant has not preserved his contentions that portions of the prosecutor's summation mischaracterized the defense, argued facts not in evidence, vouched for the credibility of a witness and expressed his personal belief in defendant's guilt (People v Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 881; People v Contrerra, 161 A.D.2d 541, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 854). Were we to consider these arguments in the interest of justice, we would find them to be without merit, or to constitute harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. (People v. Crimmins, 38 N.Y.2d 407.)

  8. People v. Tookes

    52 Misc. 3d 956 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Both Bradley and Wheeler in turn cited the First Department's decision in People v. Velasquez, 198 A.D.2d 25, 603 N.Y.S.2d 126 (1st Dept.1993). That three sentence decision propounded the same rule but with respect to surcharge waivers (which are no longer authorized) and in turn cited to People v. Ramirez, 165 A.D.2d 656, 560 N.Y.S.2d 34 (1st Dept.1990) which propounded the same rule in another brief decision. That holding cited to an earlier one sentence conclusion on the timing of waiver applications by the Second Department in People v. Fulton, 138 A.D.2d 514, 526 N.Y.S.2d 33 (2d Dept.1988) which, finally, cited to the more extended trial court analysis in People v. West, 124 Misc.2d 622, 477 N.Y.S.2d 276 (Yates County Court 1984 [Dugan, J.] ). It is this 32 year old trial court decision which appears to be the forebear of all of the subsequent appellate division cases on the issue.