People v. Angelo M.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1996 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. ANGELO M., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Linda S. Reynolds by Olga Hazlewood, Buffalo, for Appellant.
Kevin M. Dillon by Paul Williams, Buffalo, for Respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and GREEN, WESLEY, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a youthful offender adjudication finding that he committed assault in the second degree. Defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that the victim suffered serious physical injury or that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury. Because defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal was directed only at the latter issue, defendant has not preserved for our review his argument that the evidence is insufficient to show serious physical injury (see, People v. Blunt, 176 A.D.2d 741, 742, 574 N.Y.S.2d 812; People v. Davis, 172 A.D.2d 553, 554, 568 N.Y.S.2d 410, lv. denied 77 N.Y.2d 994, 571 N.Y.S.2d 920, 575 N.E.2d 406; People v. Kenyatta, 116 A.D.2d 739, 740, 498 N.Y.S.2d 35, lv. denied 67 N.Y.2d 945, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 494 N.E.2d 122; see generally, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).
The evidence is sufficient for the jury to infer that defendant intended to cause serious physical injury. It may be inferred that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts (People v. Lieberman, 3 N.Y.2d 649, 652, 171 N.Y.S.2d 73, 148 N.E.2d 293; Matter of Andre D., 182 A.D.2d 1108, 1109, 582 N.Y.S.2d 890). Defendant struck the victim with sufficient force to knock him unconscious, break his jaw and cheekbone, shatter his dentures, and cause a concussion that resulted in an accumulation of blood in the victim's brain. The victim had his jaw wired shut and could not eat solid foods for several months. He had a plate installed in his jaw, and he retains scars from the surgical incisions, a tracheotomy and the drilling of his skull to remove the blood from his brain.
In view of the violent and random nature of the assault, and the fact that defendant received youthful offender status, we conclude that defendant's sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.
Adjudication unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...v. Meacham, 84 A.D.3d 1713, 1714, 922 N.Y.S.2d 721, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 808, 929 N.Y.S.2d 568, 953 N.E.2d 806; People v. Angelo M., 231 A.D.2d 925, 925–926, 647 N.Y.S.2d 895, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 862, 653 N.Y.S.2d 285, 675 N.E.2d 1238, 89 N.Y.2d 1087, 660 N.Y.S.2d 381, 682 N.E.2d 982). The......
-
People v. Angelo M.
...285 653 N.Y.S.2d 285 89 N.Y.2d 862, 675 N.E.2d 1238 People v. Angelo M. Court of Appeals of New York Nov 19, 1996 Titone, J. 231 A.D.2d 925, 647 N.Y.S.2d 895 App.Div. 4, Erie Denied. ...
-
People v. Angelo M.
...381 660 N.Y.S.2d 381 89 N.Y.2d 1087, 682 N.E.2d 982 People v. Angelo M. Court of Appeals of New York May 8, 1997 Titone, J. 231 A.D.2d 925, 647 N.Y.S.2d 895 App.Div. 4, Erie Denied. ...