People v. Rodriguez
Decision Date | 26 October 2006 |
Docket Number | 9383. |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. After being robbed by the victim and two others, defendant exhorted a group of men that was standing outside his building to stop the robbers. When two of these men caught the victim, one of them struck him in the head with a machete while the second man also attacked him. Defendant then joined in the beating of the victim, who by this point was bleeding profusely from his head wound and had also sustained stab wounds to his thighs, one of which pierced a major blood vessel. Defendant's intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim can be readily inferred from this evidence (see People v Chowdhury, 22 AD3d 596 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 753 [2005]; People v Santos, 14 AD3d 411 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 856 [2005]).
The court also properly refused to submit assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) as a lesser included offense of gang assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.07). There was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he only intended to cause physical injury rather than serious physical injury (see People v Martinez, 30 AD3d 353 [2006]; People v White, 29 AD3d 457 [2006]). The evidence unequivocally established that when defendant beat the victim he intended to worsen the victim's already serious injuries and deteriorating condition, and that defendant "shared a `community of purpose' with [the other assailants]" (People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830, 832 [1988]).
When the jury acquitted defendant of first-degree manslaughter while convicting him of first-degree gang assault, the court properly rejected defendant's claim that the verdict was repugnant, and denied his request to resubmit the case to the jury. The verdict was not repugnant when viewed in light of the court's jury instructions (see People v Green, 71 NY2d 1006 [1988]; People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7 [1981]). While both crimes require intent to cause serious physical injury, the required result in first-degree manslaughter is the victim's death. Defendant's reliance on People v Johnson (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Sparber
...reflect the imposition of the maximum, five-year, PRS term. Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal (33 A.D.3d 543, 543, 822 N.Y.S.2d 537 [2006]). A Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal and we now modify and remit to Supreme Court for appropriate (3) People v. War......
-
People v. Lingle
...pursued his direct appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of his conviction and sentence ( People v. Rodriguez, 33 A.D.3d 543, 822 N.Y.S.2d 537 [1st Dept.2006] ). On appeal to this Court, Rodriguez argued that the PRS component to his case was unlawful because Supreme Court fa......
-
Rodriguez v. Sheaham
...offense; (3) the evidentiary ruling claim was unpreserved; and (4) there was no basis for reducing the sentence. 33 A.D.3d 543, 544-45 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2006). On November 17, 2006, Petitioner's counsel sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals to "review all issues" raised bel......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...849 PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (Manuel) Court of Appeals of the State of New York. January 10, 2007. Appeal from the 1st Dept.: 33 A.D.3d 543, 822 N.Y.S.2d 537 (NY). Application for leave to criminal-appeal. Denied2. (Kaye, 2. Denied with leave to renew within 30 days after the Court of Appeals re......