People v. Fulwood

• Decision Date: 21 July 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05995,86 A.D.3d 809,927 N.Y.S.2d 246
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Brian M. FULWOOD, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

86 A.D.3d 809

927 N.Y.S.2d 246

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05995

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Brian M. FULWOOD, Appellant.

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

July 21, 2011.

David M. Parks, Ithaca, for appellant.Weeden A. Wetmore, District Attorney, Elmira (Jeremy V. Murray of counsel), for respondent.Before: ROSE, J.P., MALONE JR., STEIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.EGAN JR., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered March 2, 2010, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

While walking home from a local adult entertainment club, defendant and his then girlfriend (hereinafter the victim) became embroiled in a verbal altercation that eventually escalated to a sexual assault, during the course of which defendant, among other things, forced the victim to perform oral sex and threatened her with a knife. As a result, defendant was indicted and charged with criminal sexual act in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to a prison term of 12 years followed by 20 years of postrelease supervision upon his conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree, together with a prison term of seven years followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision upon his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, said sentences to be served concurrently. This appeal by defendant ensued.

We affirm. Defendant initially contends that the warrantless search of his residence violated his 4th Amendment rights and, therefore, any evidence seized therefrom should have been suppressed. As to the legality of the search, defendant did not request a Mapp hearing or otherwise raise this issue in his omnibus motion and, therefore, he has failed to preserve this claim for our review ( see People v. Simmons, 20 A.D.3d 813, 814, 799 N.Y.S.2d 311 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 758, 810 N.Y.S.2d 426, 843 N.E.2d 1166 [2005]; People v. Williams, 306 A.D.2d 763, 764, 762 N.Y.S.2d 657 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 625, 767 N.Y.S.2d 409, 799 N.E.2d 632 [2003]; People v. Smith, 266 A.D.2d 639, 641, 698 N.Y.S.2d 343 [1999], lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 907, 707 N.Y.S.2d 392, 728 N.E.2d 991 [2000]; People v. Raymond, 187 A.D.2d 463, 463–464, 589 N.Y.S.2d 899 [1992], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 793, 594 N.Y.S.2d 739, 610 N.E.2d 412 [1993] ). We reach a similar conclusion regarding the physical evidence seized from the residence, as defendant raised no objection to the admission of the challenged photographs at trial, and his sole objection regarding the admissibility of the knife was based upon an alleged break in the chain of custody ( see CPL 470.05[2]; see also People v. Peele, 73 A.D.3d 1219, 1221, 900 N.Y.S.2d 776 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 894, 912 N.Y.S.2d 582, 583, 938 N.E.2d 1017, 1018 [2010]; People v. Stearns, 72 A.D.3d 1214, 1218, 898 N.Y.S.2d 348 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060 [2010]; People v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 835, 837, 673 N.Y.S.2d 216 [1998] ).

Defendant next asserts that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence—particularly with respect to the element of forcible compulsion ( see Penal Law § 130.00[8]; § 130.50[1] ). We do not agree. As relevant here, forcible compulsion means to compel by either the use of physical force or “a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another” (Penal Law § 130.00[8][b]; see People v. Porter, 82 A.D.3d 1412, 1413, 918 N.Y.S.2d 670 [2011] ). The focus is upon the victim's subjective state of mind, i.e., what the victim feared the defendant might have done had he or she not complied ( see People v. Porter, 82 A.D.3d at 1413, 918 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Maggio, 70 A.D.3d 1258, 1258, 896 N.Y.S.2d 220 [2010], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 889, 903 N.Y.S.2d 778, 929 N.E.2d 1013 [2010]; People v. Jenkins, 282 A.D.2d 926, 928, 726 N.Y.S.2d 468 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 903, 730 N.Y.S.2d 800, 756 N.E.2d 88 [2001] ), giving due consideration to, among other things, the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim ( see People v. Porter, 82 A.D.3d at 1413, 918 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Maggio, 70 A.D.3d at 1258–1259, 896 N.Y.S.2d 220; People v. Littebrant, 55 A.D.3d 1151, 1156, 867 N.Y.S.2d 550 [2008], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 818, 881 N.Y.S.2d 26, 908 N.E.2d 934 [2009] ), including any evidence of the defendant's prior abusive behavior toward the victim ( see People v. Littebrant, 55 A.D.3d at 1156, 867 N.Y.S.2d 550; People v. Black, 304 A.D.2d 905, 908, 757 N.Y.S.2d 635 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 578, 764 N.Y.S.2d 388, 796 N.E.2d 480 [2003]; see also People v. Fleegle, 20 A.D.3d 684, 687, 798 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 828, 804 N.Y.S.2d 42, 837 N.E.2d 741 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1152, 126 S.Ct. 2297, 164 L.Ed.2d 821 [2006] ).

Here, the victim testified that, in addition to holding a knife to her throat, choking her to the point of vomiting and threatening to kill her, defendant slapped her across the face, grabbed and pulled her by her hair, picked her up and dropped her on the floor, pushed her over a couch and shoved his fingers into her anus, slammed her against a door and inserted his hand into her vagina with sufficient force to lift her up off the floor, thrust his fist into her vagina and made her perform oral sex by holding her head down to the point that she gagged. The victim further testified that defendant had hit her in the past and that when, during the course of the sexual assault, defendant raised the knife above his head, she cowered and covered her face, believing that he was about to stab her. Such proof, in our view, is more than sufficient to establish the element of forcible compulsion ( see People v. Porter, 82 A.D.3d at 1414, 918 N.Y.S.2d 670; People v. Maggio, 70 A.D.3d at 1259, 896 N.Y.S.2d 220; People v. Littebrant, 55 A.D.3d at 1155–1156, 867 N.Y.S.2d 550; People v. Jenkins, 282 A.D.2d at 928, 726 N.Y.S.2d 468). Thus, based upon our independent review of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987]; People v. Diotte, 63 A.D.3d 1281, 1283, 880 N.Y.S.2d 397 [2009] ) and giving due deference to the jury's credibility determinations ( see People v. Reynolds, 81 A.D.3d 1166, 1167, 917 N.Y.S.2d 401 [2011], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 898, 926 N.Y.S.2d 34, 949 N.E.2d 982 [2011]; People v. Newkirk, 75 A.D.3d 853, 856, 906 N.Y.S.2d 133 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 834, 921 N.Y.S.2d 198, 946 N.E.2d 186 [2011] ), we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.

Nor are we persuaded that defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel. “The constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel does not mean that the representation was error free in every respect, but simply that defendant was afforded a fair trial” ( People v. Jackson, 48 A.D.3d 891, 893, 851 N.Y.S.2d 677 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 841, 859 N.Y.S.2d 400, 889 N.E.2d 87 [2008]; see People v. Washington, 21 A.D.3d 648, 650, 799 N.Y.S.2d 659 [2005], lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 839, 814 N.Y.S.2d 88, 847 N.E.2d 385 [2006] ). Although defendant complains that counsel failed to object to the admission of the victim's 911 tape or contest County Court's charge to the jury, he has not articulated any legitimate legal basis for objection ( see People v. Cioto, 80 A.D.3d 875, 876, 914 N.Y.S.2d 771 [2011], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 829, 921 N.Y.S.2d 193, 946 N.E.2d 181 [2011] ), and counsel's failure to either make a particular pretrial motion ( see People v. Jackson, 48 A.D.3d at 893, 851 N.Y.S.2d 677; People v. Miller, 11 A.D.3d 729, 730, 783 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2004] ) or request that County Court charge certain lesser included offenses ( see People v. Washington, 21 A.D.3d at 651, 799 N.Y.S.2d 659) does not, standing alone, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Inasmuch as counsel otherwise engaged in appropriate motion practice, cross-examined the People's witnesses at both the suppression hearing and trial, made appropriate objections, presented a reasonable—albeit ultimately unsuccessful—defense and gave coherent opening and closing statements, we are satisfied that defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v. Richards, 78 A.D.3d 1221, 1225, 909 N.Y.S.2d 841 [2010], lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 955, 917 N.Y.S.2d 115, 942 N.E.2d 326 [2010]; People v. Major, 68 A.D.3d 1244, 1246, 890 N.Y.S.2d 186 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 772, 898 N.Y.S.2d 104, 925 N.E.2d 109 [2010]; People v. Casey, 61 A.D.3d 1011, 1014, 876 N.Y.S.2d 532 [2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 913, 884 N.Y.S.2d 694, 912 N.E.2d 1075 [2009] ).

Defendant's remaining contentions do not...