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. Ervin Bowens, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered December 11, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's accessorial liability could be reasonably inferred from the entire course of conduct of defendant and his codefendant before, during and after the crime, along with defendant's damaging
admissions (see generally Matter of Juan J., 81 N.Y.2d 739 [1992]; People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830 [1988] ).
The sentencing court properly adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender. Not only was defendant's predicate felony (Penal Law § 110.00/265.02[4] ) classified as a violent felony at the time of that conviction in 2003 (see People v. Walker, 81 N.Y.2d 661, 664–666 [1993] ), the same crime remained a violent felony at the time of defendant's second violent felony offender adjudication, albeit as the result of a recodification (see Penal Law § 265.03[3]; William C. Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 265.00 at 413). Defendant's ex post facto argument is without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1304 9
Decided: September 30, 2014
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)