From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Toro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

October 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the defendant's conviction of grand larceny in the second degree to petit larceny, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant's contention that the value of the stolen jewelry was not established in accordance with Penal Law § 155.20 (1), which requires proof of "the market value of the property at the time and place of the crime, or if such cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, the cost of replacement of the property within a reasonable time after the crime". Accordingly, his conviction for grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law former § 155.35) cannot stand (see, People v Cromwell, 150 A.D.2d 715; People v Batista, 141 A.D.2d 654; People v Funchess, 137 A.D.2d 831). However, the evidence presented did establish the crime of petit larceny, which requires no proof of value. Accordingly, the judgment is modified to reduce his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree to petit larceny. There is no need to remit the matter for resentencing on that count as the defendant has already served the maximum period to which he could have been sentenced on the conviction of petit larceny.

Additionally, contrary to the defendant's contention, he is not entitled to be resentenced because the sentencing minutes are lost. There is a presumption of validity and regularity which attends all judgments of conviction (see, People v Bell, 36 A.D.2d 406, affd 29 N.Y.2d 882) and that presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence to the contrary (see, People v Smalls, 116 A.D.2d 675). When a transcript is missing, it is the defendant's burden to demonstrate that genuine appealable issues exist (see, People v Bell, supra, at 408) and that alternative methods of providing an adequate record are not available (see, People v Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519, 523). The defendant has not met this burden. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Toro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 5, 1992
186 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Toro

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RALPH TORO, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1992

Citations

186 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
588 N.Y.S.2d 396

Citing Cases

People v. Sattan

With regard to the underlying legality of defendant's sentence, a presumption of regularity and validity…

People v. Hall

We agree with the defendant that he is entitled to the summary reversal of his conviction and a new trial…