From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Boisseau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 31, 2006
33 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

No. 9428.

October 31, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered April 22, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Before: Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.


The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The jury could have reasonably concluded that the statement "Don't stop me, just let me go," that defendant made as he was leaving the premises with the victim's property, coupled with the presence of a knife in defendant's hand, constituted the threatened use of a dangerous instrument ( see Penal Law § 160.15; People v Thompson, 273 AD2d 153, lv denied 95 NY2d 908). There was no innocent explanation for the fact that defendant was holding a knife, and no support for the theory that defendant was merely asking the victim to allow him to leave.

Defendant's remaining contentions require preservation ( see People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, 770), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.


Summaries of

State v. Boisseau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 31, 2006
33 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

State v. Boisseau

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY BOISSEAU…

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

Date published: Oct 31, 2006

Citations

33 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 7825
824 N.Y.S.2d 17

Citing Cases

People v. Matthews

ument, such as the tire checker or bat at issue (see Penal Law § 10.00[13] ; cf.People v. Johnson , 63 A.D.3d…

People v. Samuel

There is no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations. The record raises a reasonable inference…