People v. Horlback

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Horlback

294 A.D.2d 151, 741 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4781

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 2002·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered June 17, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to charge assault in the second degree under a theory of recklessness (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]) as a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1], [2]), since no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant (see, People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705), would support a finding that he acted only recklessly, rather than intentionally. The forensic evidence established that the multiple, serious cuts that permanently disabled the victim’s hand could only have been caused by a repeated back-and-forth motion with a knife (see, People v Coleman, 114 AD2d 906, 907, lv denied 66 NY2d 1038).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered June 17, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to charge assault in the second degree under a theory of recklessness (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]) as a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1], [2]), since no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant (see, People v Martin, 59 NY2d 704, 705), would support a finding that he acted only recklessly, rather than intentionally. The forensic evidence established that the multiple, serious cuts that permanently disabled the victim’s hand could only have been caused by a repeated back-and-forth motion with a knife (see, People v Coleman, 114 AD2d 906, 907, lv denied 66 NY2d 1038).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

People v. Horlback, 294 A.D.2d 151, 741 N.Y.S.2d 406, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

294 A.D.2d 151 (People v. Horlback) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related