People v. Johnson
| Citation | 204 A.D.3d 1442,166 N.Y.S.3d 788 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 348,KA 19-00950 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joshua Q. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
204 A.D.3d 1442
166 N.Y.S.3d 788
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Joshua Q. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
348
KA 19-00950
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Entered: April 22, 2022
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
JAMES B. RITTS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (V. CHRISTOPHER EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of assault in the first degree ( Penal Law § 120.10 [1], [4] ), two counts of assault in
the second degree (§ 120.05 [2], [6]), four counts of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30 [1], [2], [3], [4]), and four counts of robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [1], [2], [3], [4]). The conviction arises from a home invasion robbery by two perpetrators during which one victim was struck in the head with the end of a shotgun and another victim was shot in the abdomen, rendering him paraplegic. We previously held this case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal, on which the court had reserved decision but failed to rule ( People v. Johnson , 192 A.D.3d 1612, 143 N.Y.S.3d 763 [4th Dept. 2021] ). Upon remittal, the court denied the motion, and we now affirm.
Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators and the unlawful entry element of the burglary charges. Initially, defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is not preserved for our review inasmuch as his general motion for a trial order of dismissal was not " ‘specifically directed’ at" any alleged shortcoming in the evidence now raised on appeal ( People v. Gray , 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; see People v. McDermott , 200 A.D.3d 1732, 1733, 155 N.Y.S.3d 905 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 929, 164 N.Y.S.3d 36, 184 N.E.3d 857 [2022] ). In any event, that contention lacks merit. "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference" ( People v. Bay , 67 N.Y.2d 787, 788, 501 N.Y.S.2d 19, 492 N.E.2d 127 [1986] ), we conclude that there is a "valid line of reasoning and permissible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis-Bush
..., 20 N.Y.3d 91, 97-98, 956 N.Y.S.2d 457, 980 N.E.2d 505 [2012] ). That attorney was not assigned to represent defendant in this matter 166 N.Y.S.3d 788 until after the conclusion of defendant's trial, and there was no indication that the attorney was still representing the victim at that ti......