People v. Kurkowski
Decision Date | 29 April 2011 |
Citation | 921 N.Y.S.2d 458,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 03482,83 A.D.3d 1595 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Charles KURKOWSKI, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Thomas J. Eoannou, Buffalo (Jeremy D. Schwartz of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michelle L. Cianciosa of Counsel), for Respondent.PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.MEMORANDUM:
On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[4] [reckless assault] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in considering assault in the second degree as a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree (§ 120.10[1] [intentional assault] ). We reject that contention. Inasmuch as “the result and underlying conduct of [reckless assault] and [intentional assault are] identical and the only distinction between the two crimes [is] the mental state of the defendant, it is, within the meaning of CPL 1.20[37] and CPL 300.50, impossible to commit the latter without concomitantly committing the former” ( People v. Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427, 432, 452 N.Y.S.2d 389, 437 N.E.2d 1146, rearg. denied 57 N.Y.2d 775, 454 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 440 N.E.2d 1343). Thus, contrary to defendant's further contentions, the conviction is not jurisdictionally defective and defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the court's consideration of the lesser included offense. Although we agree with defendant that the court failed to comply with CPL 320.20(5) because it did not notify the parties that it intended to consider a lesser included offense until after summations, we conclude that such error is harmless ( see People v. Harvey, 249 A.D.2d 951, 673 N.Y.S.2d 274; People v. Kloska, 191 A.D.2d 587, 595 N.Y.S.2d 78; see generally People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787). The theory of the defense was that defendant was not the perpetrator, a theory that applies equally to the offenses of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree ( see Harvey, 249 A.D.2d 951, 673 N.Y.S.2d 274; People v. Peterkin, 195 A.D.2d 1015, 600 N.Y.S.2d 579, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 758, 603 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 624 N.E.2d 186). Further, the court offered defense counsel the opportunity to reopen summations for the purpose of addressing the lesser included offense, thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lugo
...degree and the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree under Penal Law § 140.15(1) ( People v. Kurkowski, 83 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 921 N.Y.S.2d 458, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 896, 926 N.Y.S.2d 32, 949 N.E.2d 980; see People v. Harvey, 249 A.D.2d 951, 951, 673 N.Y.S.2d 274)......
-
People v. Kurkowski
...of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[4] ), and the judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal ( People v. Kurkowski, 83 A.D.3d 1595, 921 N.Y.S.2d 458,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 896, 926 N.Y.S.2d 32, 949 N.E.2d 980). Defendant thereafter moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the ......
-
People v. Thomas
...remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 320.20[5] ; People v. Kurkowski, 83 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 921 N.Y.S.2d 458 ; People v. Staples, 19 A.D.3d 1096, 1097, 796 N.Y.S.2d 209 ; People v. Peterkin, 195 A.D.2d 1015, 1016, 600 N.Y.S.2d 57......
-
People v. Hernandez
...that the court failed to comply with CPL 320.20 (5), we conclude that such error was harmless (see People v. Kurkowski , 83 A.D.3d 1595, 1596, 921 N.Y.S.2d 458 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 896, 926 N.Y.S.2d 32, 949 N.E.2d 980 [2011] ).Viewing the evidence in the light most favorabl......