A man was convicted of the crime of issuing a fraudulent check and of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, and from the decision of the Supreme Court that unanimously affirming the decision of conviction, the man appeals by permission.
In connection with the man’s purchase of a quantity of lumber, the man gave to the seller a check upon a bank where payment thereof was refused because of insufficient funds to the man’s credit. As a result of the transaction the man stands convicted of a violation of the penal law.
Based on records, grand larceny in the second degree is the appropriating, taking, stealing the property of another the value of which is over $100 and less than $500 in any manner whatsoever. Further, larceny is just another name for stealing and it is the taking of another man’s property with a view of depriving him of it and appropriating it to your own use and benefit, stealing. Forgery was an element.
The decision of conviction has been affirmed unanimously and the present appeal is by permission of a member of the court. The legislature has defined a violation as larceny and has made proof of intent to defraud an essential element of the crime.
Consequently, the court decided to reverse the previous decision.
Another related case was presented in court and an appeal was filed by the offender from a judgment, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
Subsequently, it is ordered that the decision is modified by reducing the offender’s conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree to petit larceny and by reducing the offender’s conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree under the third count of the indictment to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and vacating the sentences imposed thereon, as so modified, the decision is affirmed.
The offender’s disagreements with his attorney amounted to little more than a dispute over trial tactics and strategy. As a result, the offender failed to establish good cause for the assignment of a new attorney.
The offender’s contention that the evidence presented as to the second and third counts of the indictment, charging grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree was legally insufficient to prove that the value of the stolen property exceeded $1,000 has not been preserved for appellate review. However, the court reached the issue in the exercise of the court’s interest of justice jurisdiction.
The evidence with respect to the two counts of the offender was insufficient to comply with the legal requisite that the value of the stolen property exceeds one thousand dollars. However, there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the lesser-included offenses of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
Consequently, the court reduces the offender’s conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree under the second count of the indictment to petit larceny and the court reduce the offender’s conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
The court also stated that there is no need to remit the matter for resentencing since the offender already served the maximum time to which he could have been sentenced on the petit larceny conviction and the criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree conviction. Further, the offender’s remaining contentions are without merit.
If you commit a crime and you want to have a legal counsel, you can ask assistance from the Queens County Criminal Lawyers. But, if a stealing issue is involved, you can opt to have the Queens County Grand Larceny Attorney or Queens County Petit Larceny Lawyer at Stephen Bilkis and Associates office.