People v. Mike

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mike

283 A.D.2d 989, 724 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495

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

DecidedMay 2, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 989 (People v. Mike) 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. Mike, 283 A.D.2d 989, 724 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the verdict finding him guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law former § 265.03) is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). There is no support in the record for his contention that he acted in self defense. In any event, justification is not a defense to a charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see, People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267; People v Sebak, 270 AD2d 166, 167, lv denied 95 NY2d 803).

Defendant also contends that the verdict finding him guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of intent to cause serious physical injury. We disagree. Intent may be “inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused” (People v Horton, 18 NY2d 355, 359, mot to amend remittitur granted 19 NY2d 600, cert denied 387 US 934), and it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight that it should be accorded in that respect (see, People v Bleakley, supra, at 495).

We conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147) and that the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. We reject defendant’s contention that the preservation requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law are unconstitutional (see, People v Peters, 249 AD2d 987, 988, lv denied 92 NY2d 903). Finally, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony by the victim. The victim previously knew defendant, and thus the identification was merely confirmatory (see, People v Thomas, 272 AD2d 892, 894, lv denied 95 NY2d 858). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the verdict finding him guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law former § 265.03) is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). There is no support in the record for his contention that he acted in self defense. In any event, justification is not a defense to a charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see, People v Pons, 68 NY2d 264, 267; People v Sebak, 270 AD2d 166, 167, lv denied 95 NY2d 803).

Defendant also contends that the verdict finding him guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05) is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the element of intent to cause serious physical injury. We disagree. Intent may be “inferred from the totality of conduct of the accused” (People v Horton, 18 NY2d 355, 359, mot to amend remittitur granted 19 NY2d 600, cert denied 387 US 934), and it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight that it should be accorded in that respect (see, People v Bleakley, supra, at 495).

We conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147) and that the sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe. We reject defendant’s contention that the preservation requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law are unconstitutional (see, People v Peters, 249 AD2d 987, 988, lv denied 92 NY2d 903). Finally, we conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony by the victim. The victim previously knew defendant, and thus the identification was merely confirmatory (see, People v Thomas, 272 AD2d 892, 894, lv denied 95 NY2d 858). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Criminal Possession Weapon, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 989, 724 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mike-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack