People v. Desir
The People of the State of New York v. Ernest Desir
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
*743 The People proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as found by a jury, that the defendant burglarized the apartment of Louisianna Millen and stole certain items of jewelry. The only evidence regarding the value of that jewelry was Ms. Millen’s testimony that she purchased two items for approximately $330. As conceded by the People, this did not establish that the value of the jewelry exceeded $250 and accordingly the convictions have been modified (see, People v Jackson, 111 AD2d 253 ; People v Womble, 111 AD2d 283 ). As the defendant has already served the maximum time to which he could be sentenced for petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, there is no need to remit for resentencing (see, People v Giles, 121 AD2d 738 ; People v Womble, supra).
The sentence imposed for the conviction for burglary in the second degree was not excessive (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.