HOOD, CHARLES, PEOPLE v ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1160
    KA 14-02212
    PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    CHARLES HOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW
    S. SZALKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County
    (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered December 5, 2014. The judgment
    convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of promoting prison
    contraband in the first degree.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a
    jury trial of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal
    Law § 205.25 [2]), defendant contends that the verdict is against the
    weight of the evidence. We reject that contention. The evidence at
    trial established that defendant, an inmate in state prison, knowingly
    possessed the contraband in question, i.e., a razor blade melted into
    a pen cap that was found in his sock. Thus, viewing the evidence in
    light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People
    v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not
    against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley,
    69 NY2d 490, 495).
    Defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing the
    People to introduce testimony that defendant made an inculpatory
    statement, i.e., that the contraband was his, is unpreserved for our
    review inasmuch as he failed to move to suppress that evidence (see
    generally CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review defendant’s
    contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see
    CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
    Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
    Entered:    December 23, 2016                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 14-02212

Filed Date: 12/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2016