People v. Hatfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hatfield

256 A.D.2d 1105, 684 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14197

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1105 (People v. Hatfield) 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. Hatfield, 256 A.D.2d 1105, 684 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [2]), sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55) and three counts of endangering the welfare of a [1106]*1106child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]) for engaging in sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old female. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction of rape in the third degree. The complainant testified that she had intercourse with defendant around Christmas when he “put [his] penis in [her] vagina”. That testimony, if believed by the jury, is sufficient as a matter of law to establish the element of penetration (see, People v Chilson, 133 AD2d 931, 932-933, lv denied 71 NY2d 893; see also, Penal Law § 130.00 [1]).

Because defendant failed to challenge the constitutionality of a prior felony conviction at any time during the second felony offender hearing and failed to show good cause for his failure to make a timely challenge, he waived any allegation of unconstitutionality (see, CPL 400.21 [7] [b]; People v Froats, 163 AD2d 906, lv denied 76 NY2d 940). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Rape, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [2]), sexual abuse in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.55) and three counts of endangering the welfare of a [1106]*1106child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]) for engaging in sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old female. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the evidence is legally insufficient to support his conviction of rape in the third degree. The complainant testified that she had intercourse with defendant around Christmas when he “put [his] penis in [her] vagina”. That testimony, if believed by the jury, is sufficient as a matter of law to establish the element of penetration (see, People v Chilson, 133 AD2d 931, 932-933, lv denied 71 NY2d 893; see also, Penal Law § 130.00 [1]).

Because defendant failed to challenge the constitutionality of a prior felony conviction at any time during the second felony offender hearing and failed to show good cause for his failure to make a timely challenge, he waived any allegation of unconstitutionality (see, CPL 400.21 [7] [b]; People v Froats, 163 AD2d 906, lv denied 76 NY2d 940). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J. — Rape, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1105, 684 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hatfield-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack