People v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 15 December 1987 |
| Citation | 522 N.Y.S.2d 145,135 A.D.2d 443 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v. Freddie LOPEZ, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Cammack, A. Rettew, Brooklyn, for appellant-respondent.
D. Williams, for defendant-respondent-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, ROSS and ASCH, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), rendered April 23, 1985, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from three to six years, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the conviction of robbery in the first degree, remand for sentencing on said conviction and, except as thus modified, affirmed.
According to the People's evidence, defendant, accompanied by another man, never apprehended, approached Robert Lugo and announced, "This is a stick-up, give me your radio." At the same time, defendant placed his left hand inside the right side of his vest "as if he had a gun." Defendant's accomplice, standing four feet to the right of Lugo, placed his right hand into the left side of his jacket. Believing that defendant, in fact, had a gun, Lugo turned over his radio. Defendant and his companion then got into a waiting car and fled. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of both robbery in the first and second degrees. At sentence, the trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the robbery in the first degree count, finding "absolutely no evidence of displaying" a weapon. (See, Penal Law 160.15[4].) The court explained that, even though defendant placed his hand inside his vest, his hand never formed the shape of any object. Moreover, it found, the victim "never saw any object displayed." Since the court employed an erroneous standard to evidence which was plainly sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant, in the course of stealing Lugo's radio, displayed what appeared to be a firearm, we reverse and reinstate the robbery in the first degree conviction and remand for sentencing thereon.
While the display of "what appears to be" a firearm test requires a "display [of] something that could reasonably be perceived as a firearm ..." (People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 381, 469 N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752), there is no requirement that the object need be anything other than the defendant's hand. Indeed, in People v. Knowles, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aleksiewicz
...Code § 160.10, subd. 2(b) (McKinney 1988). Once again, no such testimony was given in the case before us. In People v. Lopez, 135 App.Div.2d 443, 444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 145 (1987), there was testimony that the defendant had placed his hand inside his vest "as if he had a gun." Again, no such tes......
-
People v. Lopez
...N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752), there is no requirement that the object need be anything other than the defendant's hand" (135 A.D.2d 443, 443-444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 145). In People v. Mendez, the robbery occurred in The Bronx in June of 1985. The victim testified that he was walking toward the H......
-
People v. Smith
...as a firearm, there is no requirement that the object ... be anything other than the defendant's hand" (People v. Lopez, 135 A.D.2d 443, 443–444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 145 [1st Dept.1987] [internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted] ). The Court of Appeals affirmed. To sustain a convi......
-
People v. Smith
...as a firearm, there is no requirement that the object ... be anything other than the defendant's hand" (People v. Lopez, 135 A.D.2d 443, 443–444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 145 [1st Dept.1987] [internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted] ). The Court of Appeals affirmed. To sustain a convi......