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.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Enriqo FLORES, also known as Enrique Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered August 2, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3 1/212 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's request to charge petit larceny as a lesser included offense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which a jury could find him guilty of petit larceny but not guilty of robbery in the second degree (see People v. Scarborough, 49 N.Y.2d 364, 373, 426 N.Y.S.2d 224, 402 N.E.2d 1127 [1980] ). The evidence established that immediately after defendant and his accomplices pushed and shoved the victim, the accomplices surrounded the victim and prevented his departure at the same time that defendant “asked” the victim for money, which the victim surrendered to defendant. Defendant either committed a forcible stealing (Penal Law § 160.00) of the victim's money, or he did not “wrongfully take[ ], obtain[ ] or withhold[ ]” (Penal Law § 155.05[1] ) the victim's money; under no reasonable view of the evidence did defendant commit a wrongful taking but not a forcible taking. To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 25, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)