Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Albert COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05), attempted petit larceny (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.25), and two counts of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). County Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years for the robbery count, one year for each count of petit larceny, and six months for the attempted petit larceny count.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the robbery conviction (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672; People v. Broadwater, 105 A.D.2d 1065, 482 N.Y.S.2d 633). The testimony of the cashier at the grocery store that defendant struck her, causing her to fall, provided the requisite evidence of force to support the robbery conviction (see, People v. Brown, 266 A.D.2d 77, 698 N.Y.S.2d 625, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 794, 711 N.Y.S.2d 162, 733 N.E.2d 234). Further, the verdict convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, supra, at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The determination regarding the credibility of the witnesses is a task within the province of the fact finder, and its judgment should not be lightly disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116, 122, 400 N.Y.S.2d 788, 371 N.E.2d 506).
We agree with defendant, however, that the sentence imposed for attempted petit larceny is illegal. The maximum permissible sentence for attempted petit larceny, a class B misdemeanor (see, Penal Law § 110.05 [8]; § 155.25), is a definite sentence of imprisonment not to exceed three months (see, Penal Law § 70.15[2]). Because the court expressly stated that it was sentencing defendant to the maximum sentence allowed, we modify the judgment by reducing the sentence imposed for attempted petit larceny to a determinate term of imprisonment of three months.
Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 27, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)