From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. VanDuyne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1999
267 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued November 9, 1999

December 20, 1999

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Pano Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered November 9, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Anthony N. Iannarelli, Jr., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the defendant's conviction of assault in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his statements were made after he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 ; People v. Rose, 223 A.D.2d 607 ).

As the People correctly concede, the defendant's conviction of assault in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 120.05[6]) must be vacated since that offense is an inclusory concurrent count of the crime of robbery in the second degree (see, People v. Ross, 246 A.D.2d 561 ; People v. Male, 227 A.D.2d 502 ; People v. Tucker, 221 A.D.2d 670 ). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the crime of grand larceny in the fourth degree, based upon the theory that property was taken from the person of the victim, is not a lesser-included offense of robbery in the second degree (see,Penal Law § 160.10[2]; People v. Ross, supra, at 562; People v. Tucker, supra; Matter of Albert R., 215 A.D.2d 563, 564 ). Further, the charge of assault in the third degree is not a lesser-included offense of the offense of robbery in the second degree (see, People v. Ross, supra; People v. Tucker, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]) or without merit.

RITTER, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. VanDuyne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1999
267 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. VanDuyne

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. EMERALD VanDUYNE, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Dec 20, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
701 N.Y.S.2d 99

Citing Cases

People v. Maldonado

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict…

People v. Curry

The defendant's contention that the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient to support the…