PEOPLE v. NOLEN

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Wallace S. NOLEN, appellant.

Decided: March 29, 1999

SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON and DANIEL W. JOY, JJ. Ethel P. Ross, Rye, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 28, 1994, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to steal money is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19-21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).

 The court did not err in ordering the defendant to pay statutory surcharges as well as restitution to the complainants (see, Penal Law §§ 60.25, 60.27;  People v. Consalvo, 89 N.Y.2d 140, 651 N.Y.S.2d 963, 674 N.E.2d 672;  People v. Cabrera, 243 A.D.2d 720, 664 N.Y.S.2d 308).   In addition, his sentence was not illegal or excessive (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2];  People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard