People v. Sloan

132 A.D.3d 593, 19 N.Y.S.3d 508
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 29, 2015
Docket16010 99/13
StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.D.3d 593 (People v. Sloan) 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. Sloan, 132 A.D.3d 593, 19 N.Y.S.3d 508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, as amended December 19, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of stalking in the first and second degrees, criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts), criminal contempt in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, and the mixed verdict does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Ray am, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). The physical injury element of first-degree stalking was established by evidence that, when viewed as a whole, supports the conclusion that the victim sustained substantial pain. Among other things, defendant repeatedly punched the victim, causing swelling on the side of her face and other injuries, and she was treated at a hospital (see e.g. People v Stapleton, 33 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 904 [2006]). The jury could have reasonably inferred that there was “more than slight or trivial pain” (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; see also People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]). The evidence also established the charges that involved display of a dangerous instrument.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Chiddick
866 N.E.2d 1039 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Rayam
729 N.E.2d 694 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
People v. Guidice
634 N.E.2d 951 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
People v. Stapleton
33 A.D.3d 464 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 A.D.3d 593, 19 N.Y.S.3d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sloan-nyappdiv-2015.