You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON...
, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF PETIT LARCENY; THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN CELL PHONES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED TOGETHER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE CELL PHONES WERE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request the jury be charged with the lesser included offense of petit larceny in this robbery case involving the theft of cell phones: and (2), the value of the cell phones should not have been added together because there was no proof the phones were owned by the same owner:

Defendant was charged with thefts of cell phones from four wireless phone stores. As to one incident, it was alleged defendant forcibly stole a cell phone in that his showing of a knife to the store employee constituted a threat of force and was perceived by the employee as a threat. While the defense conceded that defendant stole a cell phone, it denied any force was used. Nevertheless, at the charge conference prior to jury deliberations, defense counsel failed to ask for submission of the charge of petit larceny. Since the existing record clearly establishes that this was a mistake, rather than a strategic decision, no CPL 440.10 motion is necessary. When counsel asked for submission of the lesser included offense in the midst of jury deliberations, he expressly admitted that he had been “remiss” in not making a timely request. In any event, counsel could not have been employing an all-or-nothing strategy as to the robbery as argued by the People. This strategy would have made no sense, because the defense was conceding that defendant was guilty of petit larceny as to the other incidents and was already inviting convictions of several misdemeanors. …

Defendant is also entitled to dismissal of the grand larceny charge, which was based upon the improper aggregation of the value of phones taken from two separate AT & T stores on two different days. The People failed to prove that the stores, and the phones located therein, had the same “owner” for the purpose of aggregating multiple thefts … . There was no evidence that these stores were owned by the same corporation, as opposed to, for example, dealerships separately owned and authorized to sell AT & T wireless products and services ,,, , People v Camacho, 2019 NY Slip Op 08944, First Dept 12-12-19

 

You might also like
Affidavit Supporting Motion to Strike Did Not Demonstrate Good Faith Effort to Resolve Issue with Opposing Counsel
THE VIOLATIONS OF EXECUTIVE LAW 63 (12) BASED ON FALSE “STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION” (SFC’S) SUBMITTED TO OBTAIN LOANS FOR TRUMP ENTITIES WERE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE RELATED “DISGORGEMENT” OF NEARLY HALF-A-BILLION DOLLARS WAS DEEMED AN EXCESSIVE FINE AND WAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO AGREE TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON, VEHICLE AND RESIDENCE WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE CONVICTION (LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT); THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY HAD TIMELY ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF HER CLAIM AND HER ALLEGATION THAT HER INJURIES PREVENTED HER FROM MAKING A TIMELY CLAIM WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE TREE WELL COULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PROPERLY GRANTED BASED UPON CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES (FIRST DEPT).
Sheetrock Resting on Blocks Satisfied Height Differential in Labor Law 240(1) Action
INJURY FROM SIX INCH FALL OF 500 POUND BEAM COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), POWER TO STOP WORK FOR SAFETY REASONS INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEUROLOGIST AND DEFENDANT CARDIOLOGIST WERE... IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT...