People v. Quinn
Decision Date | 13 October 1992 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Michael QUINN, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Theresa Begley, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Seth M. Lieberman, and Noreen Healey, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.), rendered December 10, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the conviction of robbery in the first degree to petit larceny and vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, the defendant and his codefendant Keith Wilson were convicted of robbery in the first degree in connection with the alleged robbery of an undercover police officer during a purported drug transaction. At the trial, the undercover officer testified that during the course of a so-called "buy and bust" operation, she gave the defendant $10 for a "dime" quantity of crack cocaine as they were walking on the street toward a building located in Brooklyn. As she waited in the lobby of the building, the defendant went upstairs, appearing to be on his way to get the drugs, and the codefendant Wilson entered the lobby. After five or ten minutes, the defendant returned to the lobby but without the drugs. When the undercover officer asked for her money back, the codefendant Wilson grabbed her and pushed her up against the wall while the defendant held a razor up to her neck and said, "I'll cut your throat out". At that point, the backup team rushed in and arrested the defendant and the codefendant. The defendant did not have the money in his possession, and it was never recovered. On this appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence adduced at the trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree on the ground that there was no use of force exercised in connection with the defendant's retention of the undercover officer's money. We agree.
Penal Law § 160.00 defines robbery, in part, as follows:
.
In order to convict the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Turner
...... the retention [of the property] immediately after the taking ...." The defendant also mistakenly relies on People v. Quinn , 186 App. Div. 2d 691, 588 N.Y.S.2d 646 (1992), which makes clear that, under New York state law, a larceny by false pretenses can serve as the predicate felony fo......
-
People v. Hanlon
...582 N.Y.S.2d 946, 591 N.E.2d 1132 (1992); People v. Kellam, 189 A.D.2d 1008, 592 N.Y.S.2d 864 (3rd Dept.1993); People v. Quinn, 186 A.D.2d 691, 588 N.Y.S.2d 646 (2d Dept. 1992). For example, in the recent case of People v. Kellam, supra, the Third Department overturned the defendant's robbe......
-
People v. Briggs
...to robbery in the third degree (see, CPL 470.15[2][a]; People v. Jackson, 200 A.D.2d 762, 762-63, 607 N.Y.S.2d 97; People v. Quinn, 186 A.D.2d 691, 692, 588 N.Y.S.2d 646). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that reversal of his conviction is warranted because court officers acc......
-
People v. Cooper
...the petit larceny conviction (see, Penal Law § 70.15[1]; People v. Hernandez, 203 A.D.2d 479, 480, 610 N.Y.S.2d 577; People v. Quinn, 186 A.D.2d 691, 692, 588 N.Y.S.2d 646). ...