People v. Flowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flowers

178 A.D.2d 682, 577 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15984

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 682 (People v. Flowers) 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

People v. Flowers, 178 A.D.2d 682, 577 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered December 11, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment was not preserved for appellate review insofar as he failed to raise an objection thereto at the time of his guilty plea (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Di Noia, 105 AD2d 799, lv denied 64 NY2d 759, cert denied 471 US 1022; People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604). In any event, defendant’s claim that the broomstick handle used in the assault was not a dangerous instrument under the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) is without merit. The circumstances under which the handle was used made it capable of causing serious physical injury (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; People v Carter, 53 NY2d 113; People v Naylor, 120 AD2d 940, lv denied 69 NY2d 714); defendant was therefore properly charged under Penal Law § 120.05 (2). Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered December 11, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment was not preserved for appellate review insofar as he failed to raise an objection thereto at the time of his guilty plea (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Di Noia, 105 AD2d 799, lv denied 64 NY2d 759, cert denied 471 US 1022; People v Torres, 96 AD2d 604). In any event, defendant’s claim that the broomstick handle used in the assault was not a dangerous instrument under the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) is without merit. The circumstances under which the handle was used made it capable of causing serious physical injury (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [13]; People v Carter, 53 NY2d 113; People v Naylor, 120 AD2d 940, lv denied 69 NY2d 714); defendant was therefore properly charged under Penal Law § 120.05 (2). Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 682, 577 N.Y.S.2d 674, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flowers-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack