PEARSON, JEFFREY, PEOPLE v ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    385
    KA 10-01386
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    JEFFREY PEARSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHELLE L.
    CIANCIOSA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P.
    Franczyk, J.), rendered June 22, 2010. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of attempted murder in the second
    degree, aggravated criminal contempt and aggravated harassment in the
    second degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    following a nonjury trial of attempted murder in the second degree
    (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), aggravated criminal contempt (§
    215.52 [1]) and aggravated harassment in the second degree (§ 240.30
    [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that
    the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his intent to kill
    the victim inasmuch as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order
    of dismissal after presenting evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d
    56, 61, rearg denied 97 NY2d 678). In any event, that contention is
    without merit (see generally People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349).
    County Court reasonably could have inferred such intent from
    defendant’s numerous threats to kill the victim and his subsequent
    conduct of stabbing the victim five times in the chest (see People v
    Massey, 61 AD3d 1433, 1433-1434, lv denied 13 NY3d 746; People v
    Ortiz, 212 AD2d 444, 445, lv denied 85 NY2d 941). Contrary to
    defendant’s further contention, the court was not empowered to
    consider the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree
    (§ 120.05 [1]) because there is no “reasonable view of the evidence .
    . . that would support a finding that” defendant intended to cause
    serious physical injury to the victim but did not intend to kill her
    (People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63). Viewing the evidence in light of
    the elements of the crime of attempted murder in the second degree in
    this nonjury trial (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349), we conclude that
    -2-                           385
    KA 10-01386
    the verdict with respect to that crime is not against the weight of
    the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
    Although defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to
    suppress statements that he made to police after he was arrested, such
    statements were never used at trial, and thus defendant’s contention
    is moot. The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have
    considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is
    without merit.
    Entered:   March 23, 2012                       Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 10-01386

Filed Date: 3/23/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/8/2016