Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Baker

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

January 15, 2020

The People, etc., respondent,
v.
Ralph Baker, appellant. Ind. No. 6455/11

          Argued - October 18, 2019

         D61823 M/htr

          Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

          Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Solomon Neubort, and Richard K. Farrell of counsel), for respondent.

          WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL COLLEEN D. DUFFY VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

          DECISION & ORDER

         Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruth Shillingford, J.), rendered June 20, 2014, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the second degree, offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (six counts), falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, and criminal trespass in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review orders of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

         ORDERED that upon the appeal from the judgment, so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until and including June 20, 2034, are vacated, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection, taking into account the defendant's jail-time credit; and it is further, ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

         The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each of the crimes. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).

         The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based solely upon his counsel's failure to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support all of his convictions, is without merit (see People v Edwards, 164 A.D.3d 830, 831).

         The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to support the charges of which he was convicted is not reviewable on appeal, as the defendant was convicted at trial based on legally sufficient evidence (see CPL 210.30[6]; People v McCray, 61 A.D.3d 999).

         The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

         As the People concede, the duration of the orders of protection issued at sentencing exceeded the maximum time limit set forth in CPL 530.13(4) and failed to take into consideration the defendant's jail-time credit. Accordingly, we vacate so much of the orders of protection as directed that they remain in effect until and including June 20, 2034, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination of the duration of the orders of protection (see People v Gooding, 174 A.D.3d 642, 643; People v Ramos, 164 A.D.3d 922, 923-924).

         The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.