From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Colon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 23, 2015
129 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2015-06-23

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angel COLON, Defendant–Appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Luis Morales of counsel), for respondent.



Seymour W. James, Jr., The Legal Aid Society, New York (Michael McLaughlin of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Luis Morales of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, CLARK, KAPNICK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered January 4, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, burglary in the third degree, and auto stripping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's legal sufficiency claim regarding his robbery conviction is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). The evidence amply supported the jury's conclusion that defendant used or threatened the immediate use of physical force for the purpose of retaining stolen property ( see People v. Gordon, 23 N.Y.3d 643, 649–651, 992 N.Y.S.2d 700, 16 N.E.3d 1178 [2014] ). The victim clearly testified that defendant did not drop the stolen property until after he “swung” at the victim. This violent act satisfied the element of force, and defendant's arguments to the contrary are without merit.

The court's Sandoval ruling was an improvident exercise of discretion only to the extent that it permitted inquiry into a criminal mischief conviction's underlying facts, which were extremely similar to the facts of the present case. However, we find the error to be harmless ( see People v. Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52 [2006] ).


Summaries of

People v. Colon

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 23, 2015
129 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Colon

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angel COLON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 23, 2015

Citations

129 A.D.3d 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
129 A.D.3d 597
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 5419

Citing Cases

People v. Cruzado

The evidence supports the conclusion that when defendant used force against a store employee, at least one of…

People v. Colon

Judge: Decision Reported Below: 1st Dept: 129 AD3d 597 (NY)…