From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — Attempted Burglary, 2nd Degree.

PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., HAYES, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 110.00, 140.25 Penal [2]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe. The criminal intent of a burglar or attempted burglar may be inferred from the circumstances of the entry or attempted entry ( see, People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 362, n 1; People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 280). The People need not establish that defendant intended to commit any particular crime ( see, People v. Mahboudian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 193; People v. Mackey, supra, at 278-279). Here, the evidence supports the inference that defendant had the intent to commit a crime inside the apartment, and the jury gave the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v. Williams, 221 A.D.2d 673; People v. Mann, 216 A.D.2d 796, 798-799, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 797; People v. Estrada, 173 A.D.2d 555, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 954). The sentence imposed, a determinate term of incarceration of six years, is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BILLY G…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
710 N.Y.S.2d 285

Citing Cases

People v. Mainella

We reject that contention ( see generally People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 6-8, rearg denied 55 N.Y.2d 1039).…