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. Lawrence E. Penn III, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered April 21, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the first degree and falsifying business records in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of two to six years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 11, 2016, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
By pleading guilty, defendant automatically forfeited appellate review of his claim that he was an owner of the stolen property and thus could not be guilty of larceny (see People v. Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400 [2010]; see also People v. Levin, 57 N.Y.2d 1008 [1982]; People v. Mendez, 25 AD3d 346 [1st Dept 2006] ). In any event, the record before us establishes that, unlike the situation in People v. Zinke (76 N.Y.2d 8 [1990] ), defendant adopted a form of business organization whereby he held no ownership interest in the stolen money at the time of the theft.
Defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714 [1998]; People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404 [1995]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 [1984] ). As indicated, it would have been unavailing for counsel to litigate the issue of whether defendant was an owner of the stolen property. Defendant's remaining claims of ineffective assistance are without merit.
_
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: 4485– 4486
Decided: September 26, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)