People v. Wattkis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wattkis

2016 NY Slip Op 6659, 143 A.D.3d 500, 39 N.Y.S.3d 17

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 2016·No. 1857 4557/12·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of strangulation in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, assault in the third degree, and menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

There was legally sufficient evidence that defendant restrained the victim under circumstances that exposed her to a risk of serious physical injury to support the first-degree unlawful imprisonment conviction. The evidence supports the conclusion that the risk of serious physical injury occasioned by defendant’s violent conduct toward the victim was present during the time he restrained her. Defendant’s remaining sufficiency-related arguments are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits, and we also find that *501 the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown that any of the objections or applications that he faults trial counsel for failing to make had any reasonable possibility of success, or of affecting the outcome of the case.

Concur — Maz-zarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of strangulation in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, assault in the third degree, and menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

There was legally sufficient evidence that defendant restrained the victim under circumstances that exposed her to a risk of serious physical injury to support the first-degree unlawful imprisonment conviction. The evidence supports the conclusion that the risk of serious physical injury occasioned by defendant’s violent conduct toward the victim was present during the time he restrained her. Defendant’s remaining sufficiency-related arguments are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits, and we also find that *501 the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Love, 57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown that any of the objections or applications that he faults trial counsel for failing to make had any reasonable possibility of success, or of affecting the outcome of the case.

Concur — Maz-zarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.

People v. Wattkis, 2016 NY Slip Op 6659, 143 A.D.3d 500, 39 N.Y.S.3d 17 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 6659 (People v. Wattkis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related