People v. Battles
| Decision Date | 15 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2006-04871. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 06564,65 A.D.3d 1161,886 N.Y.S.2d 170 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CALVIN BATTLES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions of depraved indifference murder and depraved indifference assault because evidence that he was intoxicated on crack cocaine negated the culpable mental state of depraved indifference is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 492 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; People v Frederick, 60 AD3d 691 [2009]; People v Nikc, 52 AD3d 740, 740 [2008]). In any event, this contention is without merit. Assuming, without deciding, that voluntary intoxication may negate the mens rea of depraved indifference (see People v Valencia, 58 AD3d 879 [2009], lv granted 12 NY3d 790 [2009]), the record in this case does not support an inference that the defendant's mental state was so affected by his ingestion of crack cocaine that he did not possess the requisite mental state (cf. People v Coon, 34 AD3d 869, 870 [2006]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in refusing to submit to the jury assault in the third degree, or reckless assault, as a lesser-included offense of assault in the first degree, or depraved indifference assault, because evidence of his intoxication on crack-cocaine negated any evidence that he acted with depraved indifference, also is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v White, 29 AD3d 457, 458 [2006]; People v Yen Koh, 225 AD2d 476 [1996]). In any event, this contention is without merit.
As the People correctly concede, however, the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree (see Penal Law § 125.15 [1]) must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seda v. Conway
...without merit. It rejected, without discussion, defendant's consecutive sentencing claim as without merit. People v. Battles, 65 A.D.3d 1161, 886 N.Y.S.2d 170 (App.Div.2d Dept.2009). On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the majority held, without discussion, that Battles's challenge ......
-
People v. Battles
...of second-degree manslaughter ( see Penal Law § 125.15[1] ) and the sentence imposed thereon, and otherwise affirmed (65 A.D.3d 1161, 886 N.Y.S.2d 170 [2d Dept.2009] ). As relevant to this appeal, the court held that defendant's Apprendi claim was unpreserved and without merit ( id. at 1162......
-
People v. Battles
...of second-degree manslaughter ( see Penal Law § 125.15[1] ) and the sentence imposed thereon, and otherwise affirmed (65 A.D.3d 1161, 886 N.Y.S.2d 170 [2d Dept.2009] ). As relevant to this appeal, the court held that defendant's Apprendi claim was unpreserved and without merit ( id. at 1162......
-
Battles v. Lavalley
...2009, the Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the conviction for manslaughter in the second degree. People v. Battles, 65 A.D.3d 1161 (2d Dep't 2009). It otherwise affirmed the judgment. Id. It had no effect on the overall sentence. Petitioner was granted rare leave to appe......