People v Bacuetes (Ronaldson)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Bacuetes (Ronaldson) 2016 NY Slip Op 51340(U) Decided on September 27, 2016 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 27, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Gonzalez, J.
570701/13

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ronaldson Bacuetes, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 21, 2012, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted petit larceny, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 21, 2012, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of attempted petit larceny (see Penal Law §§110.00/155.25) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence of defendant's guilt, including the testimony of the complaining witness, several bank employees and a police detective, which supported the conclusion that defendant acted with larcenous intent when he removed the complainant's paycheck out of a supervisor's desk drawer, signed his name on the back of the paycheck and deposited it into his bank account, all without the complainant's permission or knowledge (see People v Lane, 25 AD3d 517 [2006], affd 7 NY3d 888 [2006]; see also People v Allen, 30 AD3d 825 [2006]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations, including its rejection of defendant's explanation for his conduct (see People v Marks, 67 AD3d 477 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur
Decision Date: September 27, 2016

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.