People v. Woodford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodford

259 A.D.2d 717, 688 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2662

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 717 (People v. Woodford) 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. Woodford, 259 A.D.2d 717, 688 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, convicting him of assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the second degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child (six counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree to attempted assault in the third degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of testimony relating to a prior uncharged crime (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). We disagree. Initially we note that many of the defendant’s claims in this regard have not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, evidence that on one prior occasion the defendant threatened his wife and mother-in-law with a gun was properly admitted for the limited purpose of refuting the defendant’s claim that he did not own or use a gun during the attack in question (see, People v Hagi, 169 AD2d 203).

We agree with the defendant that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish his guilt of assault in the third degree. However, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of the lesser-included offense of attempted assault in the third degree (see, CPL 470.15 [2] [a]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict on the other counts is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

As the defendant had already served in excess of the [718]*718maximum term for attempted assault in the third degree, there is no need to remit the matter for resentencing (see, People v Bernard, 123 AD2d 324). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, convicting him of assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the second degree (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child (six counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the defendant’s conviction of assault in the third degree to attempted assault in the third degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of testimony relating to a prior uncharged crime (see, People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). We disagree. Initially we note that many of the defendant’s claims in this regard have not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, evidence that on one prior occasion the defendant threatened his wife and mother-in-law with a gun was properly admitted for the limited purpose of refuting the defendant’s claim that he did not own or use a gun during the attack in question (see, People v Hagi, 169 AD2d 203).

We agree with the defendant that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish his guilt of assault in the third degree. However, the evidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of the lesser-included offense of attempted assault in the third degree (see, CPL 470.15 [2] [a]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict on the other counts is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

As the defendant had already served in excess of the [718]*718maximum term for attempted assault in the third degree, there is no need to remit the matter for resentencing (see, People v Bernard, 123 AD2d 324). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 717, 688 N.Y.S.2d 167, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodford-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack