BLUNT, DURELL, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BLUNT, DURELL, PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2017

DocketKA 15-01590

StatusPublished

This text of BLUNT, DURELL, PEOPLE v (BLUNT, DURELL, PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BLUNT, DURELL, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

496 KA 15-01590 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DURELL BLUNT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (ERIC R. SCHIENER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered September 16, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

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 promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Mansilla, 143 AD3d 1263, 1263; People v Davey, 134 AD3d 1448, 1449). Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), the evidence provided a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), i.e., that defendant possessed a flat, sharpened piece of metal that he wielded during a prison fight. Moreover, 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 People v Hood, 145 AD3d 1565, 1565-1566; Mansilla, 143 AD3d at 1263; see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). We have considered defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

496 KA 15-01590 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DURELL BLUNT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (ERIC R. SCHIENER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered September 16, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

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 promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Mansilla, 143 AD3d 1263, 1263; People v Davey, 134 AD3d 1448, 1449). Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), the evidence provided a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), i.e., that defendant possessed a flat, sharpened piece of metal that he wielded during a prison fight. Moreover, 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 People v Hood, 145 AD3d 1565, 1565-1566; Mansilla, 143 AD3d at 1263; see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). We have considered defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BLUNT, DURELL, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blunt-durell-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack