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, etc., respondent, v. Mary KOLEMPEAR, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, convicting her of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of burglary in the second degree to criminal trespass in the second degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally insufficient to support the defendant's burglary conviction. To support a conviction of burglary in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 140.25[2] ), the People ordinarily do not need to establish that the defendant intended to commit a particular crime inside the dwelling in question (see, People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 362, 547 N.Y.S.2d 620, 546 N.E.2d 913; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274, 278-281, 425 N.Y.S.2d 288, 401 N.E.2d 398). Here, however, the People were required to prove that the defendant intended to commit a larceny, having limited themselves to this theory in their bill of particulars and opening statement (see, People v. Shealy, 51 N.Y.2d 933, 434 N.Y.S.2d 986, 415 N.E.2d 974; People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 379, n. 3, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071; People v. Davis, 118 A.D.2d 795, 500 N.Y.S.2d 163). Since there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a larceny inside the dwelling, the defendant's conviction for burglary in the second degree must be reduced to the lesser-included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree, which was proven.
Inasmuch as the defendant has already served the maximum sentence which could be imposed for criminal trespass in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 70.15[1] ), we do not remit the matter for resentencing.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 13, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)