People v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 19 June 2014
• Citation: 118 A.D.3d 1188,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04530,987 N.Y.S.2d 704
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason DIXON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 1188
987 N.Y.S.2d 704
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04530

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jason DIXON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 19, 2014.

Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K. Gould of counsel), for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, ROSE, EGAN JR. and LYNCH, JJ.

McCARTHY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered April 3, 2012, upon a verdict convicting

[987 N.Y.S.2d 705]

defendant of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree.

Police officers arrested defendant based upon a report by the victim that he assaulted her at their residence. During his arraignment, City Court issued and had defendant served with an order of protection prohibiting him from having any contact with the victim or going to her residence. Later that day, police received another call from the victim's residence regarding a second incident and, in responding to that call, found defendant standing in a parking lot adjacent to her residence. Defendant was subsequently charged with strangulation in the second degree and assault in the second degree (two counts) with respect to the first report and criminal contempt in the first degree with respect to the later report. Following a trial, the jury convicted defendant of criminal contempt in the first degree and acquitted him of the other counts. County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years in prison. Defendant appeals.

The verdict convicting defendant of criminal contempt in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence. The People were required to prove that defendant “ha[d] actual knowledge [of an order of protection] because he ... was present in court when such order was issued” and that, in violation of that order, defendant, “with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm [the victim], str[uck], shove[d], kick[ed] or otherwise subject[ed the victim] to physical contact or attempt[ed] or threaten[ed] to do the same” (Penal Law § 215.51[b][v] ). A police officer testified that City Court informed defendant that he was not to have contact with the victim and that he was not to go to her residence, except while accompanied by law enforcement and for the limited purpose of retrieving his property. The officer also testified that defendant signed the order of protection and was served with a copy of it, as well as a notice of property retrieval, both of which contained...