WILLIAMS, LAMONT D., PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    947
    KA 11-01832
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    LAMONT D. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (LIAM A. DWYER OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Shirley
    Troutman, J.), rendered October 20, 2009. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in
    the second degree (two counts), menacing a police officer and
    loitering.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon a jury verdict of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon
    in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]), and one count
    each of menacing a police officer (§ 120.18) and loitering (§ 240.35
    [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that
    the conviction of one of the two counts of criminal possession of a
    weapon and the conviction of menacing a police officer are not
    supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d
    10, 19) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit. Viewing the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v
    Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that there is legally
    sufficient evidence to establish that defendant intended to use the
    revolver unlawfully against another (see § 265.03 [1] [b]; see
    generally People v Hunter, 46 AD3d 1417, 1417, lv denied 10 NY3d 812)
    and intended to place the officers in reasonable fear of physical
    injury, serious physical injury or death (see § 120.18; People v
    McCottery, 90 AD3d 1323, 1324-1325). The officers testified that
    defendant was ordered to drop his weapon and refused to comply, and
    that defendant pointed the gun or waved the gun at the officers as
    they pursued him. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of
    the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and
    menacing a police officer as charged to the jury (see People v
    Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant’s further contention
    -2-                           947
    KA 11-01832
    that the verdict with respect to those three counts is against the
    weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,
    495).
    Defendant’s further contention that he was denied a fair trial by
    prosecutorial misconduct is not preserved for our review (see People v
    Thomas, 96 AD3d 1670, 1673) and, in any event, is without merit.
    Although defendant is correct that the prosecutor improperly cross-
    examined a defense witness regarding whether he had been arrested and
    the grounds for those arrests (see People v Morrice, 61 AD3d 1390,
    1391-1392), that one instance of prosecutorial misconduct was not so
    egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v
    Szyzskowski, 89 AD3d 1501, 1503). We reject defendant’s contention
    that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during her summation
    inasmuch as the comments in question were fair response to the
    summation of defense counsel (see People v Rivers, 82 AD3d 1623, 1624,
    lv denied 17 NY3d 904; People v Cunningham, 12 AD3d 1131, 1132, lv
    denied 4 NY3d 829, reconsideration denied 5 NY3d 761). We reject
    defendant’s further contention that he was denied effective assistance
    of counsel based on the failure of defense counsel to object to the
    alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct (see People v Tolliver,
    93 AD3d 1150, 1151, lv denied 19 NY3d 968; see generally People v
    Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).
    Finally, defendant contends that County Court failed to comply
    with CPL 270.35 in discharging a sworn juror, requiring reversal.
    Defendant, however, consented to the discharge of that juror and
    therefore has waived that contention (see People v Barner, 30 AD3d
    1091, 1092, lv denied 7 NY3d 809; see also People v Davis, 83 AD3d
    860, 861).
    Entered:   September 28, 2012                   Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 11-01832

Filed Date: 9/28/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016