People v. Dietz
| Decision Date | 11 July 2012 |
| Citation | 947 N.Y.S.2d 891,97 A.D.3d 692,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05544 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kordian DIETZ, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (John M. Dowden of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Asher, J.), rendered June 30, 2010, convicting him of assault in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902). The evidence established that, when the defendant hit the complainant in the face with a bottle, he intended to cause serious physical injury and to disfigure the complainant seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his body ( seePenal Law §§ 120.10[1], [2] ). Moreover, the People disproved the defendant's justification defense, since the evidencedemonstrated that the defendant could not have reasonably believed that the complainant was using or was about to use deadly physical force on him ( seePenal Law § 35.15 [2] [a] ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Komynar
...Law §§ 10.00[9] ; 120.05[2]), which may be inferred from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v. Dietz, 97 A.D.3d 692, 947 N.Y.S.2d 891 ; People v. Williams, 160 A.D.2d 753, 553 N.Y.S.2d 818 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an indepen......
-
People v. Denham
...933 N.Y.S.2d 386;People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919). The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental [97 A.D.3d 692]brief, that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of his omnibus motion which was, in effect, to direct the complainant to [948 N.......
- Robinson v. Peck
- People v. Dietz