Opinion
2012-02-2
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joel RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellant Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellant Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, RENWICK, ROMÁN, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered June 9, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the robbery conviction to 2 to 4 years, and otherwise affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his statement to the police. The record supports the court's finding that the statement, which defendant made prior to receiving Miranda warnings, was not the product of a custodial interrogation. In this street encounter near the scene of the crime, the police did not restrain defendant or do anything to convey to him that he had been taken into custody ( see People v. Taylor, 57 A.D.3d 327, 869 N.Y.S.2d 442 [2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 860, 881 N.Y.S.2d 671, 909 N.E.2d 594 [2009] ). We reject defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the robbery conviction. The evidence supports the inference that when defendant threatened to beat up or kill the victim, defendant's intent was to retain possession of the cell phone he had stolen from the victim ( see People v. Flag, 2 A.D.3d 153, 767 N.Y.S.2d 627 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 627, 777 N.Y.S.2d 26, 808 N.E.2d 1285 [2004] ). The jury was entitled to reject the theory that defendant was merely trying to get back his own phone, which he claimed to have been stolen by the victim. The evidence also establishes that defendant made the threat immediately after stealing the victim's phone ( see People v. Jones, 282 A.D.2d 382, 723 N.Y.S.2d 650, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 920, 732 N.Y.S.2d 637, 758 N.E.2d 663 [2001] ).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.