People v. Roman, KA 03-00661.

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation13 A.D.3d 1115,787 N.Y.S.2d 568,2004 NY Slip Op 09840
Docket NumberKA 03-00661.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILFRED ROMAN, JR., Appellant.
Decision Date30 December 2004
13 A.D.3d 1115
787 N.Y.S.2d 568
2004 NY Slip Op 09840
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
v.
WILFRED ROMAN, JR., Appellant.
KA 03-00661.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.
December 30, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered February 28, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal contempt in the first degree, aggravated harassment in the second degree (four counts), stalking in the fourth degree (three counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree (three counts).


It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by amending the order of protection and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [iv]); criminal contempt in the second degree (three counts) (§ 215.50 [3]); aggravated harassment in the second degree (four counts) (§ 240.30 [1] [a]); and stalking in the fourth degree (three counts) (§ 120.45 [1], [2], [3]). Defendant was sentenced to various terms of incarceration that, by operation of law (see § 70.35), are limited to the indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 4 years imposed upon defendant's conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree. The sentencing court issued an order of protection for the benefit of the victim.

By affirmatively requesting that Supreme Court submit charges of criminal contempt in the second degree as lesser included offenses of criminal contempt in the first degree, defendant has waived any claim of error with respect to such submission (see People v Mills, 1 NY3d 269, 274 [2003]; People v Richardson, 88 NY2d 1049, 1051 [1996]; People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275, 283 [1984]; see also CPL 300.50 [1]).

The evidence is legally sufficient (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]) to establish defendant's knowledge of the existence and contents of a temporary order of protection, more particularly, the conduct prohibited thereby (see People v D'Angelo, 284 AD2d 146 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 733 [2002]; see also People v Clark, 95 NY2d 773, 775 [2000], rearg denied 95

NY2d 849 [2000]; cf. People v McCowan, 85...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • People v. Madore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...802, 756 N.E.2d 90 ). Intent may also be inferred from the natural and probable consequences of defendant's conduct (see People v. Roman, 13 A.D.3d 1115, 1115, 787 N.Y.S.2d 568, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 802, 795 N.Y.S.2d 178, 828 N.E.2d 94 ). Here, the People presented evidence establishing that......
  • People v. Cung
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 27, 2013
    ...knowledge of the existence and contents of [the first] order of protection [and] the conduct prohibited thereby” (People v. Roman, 13 A.D.3d 1115, 1115, 787 N.Y.S.2d 568, lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 802, 795 N.Y.S.2d 178, 828 N.E.2d 94; see Wilmore, 305 A.D.2d at 118, 761 N.Y.S.2d 597). Contrary to ......
  • People v. Coleman
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 22, 2017
    ...consequences of defendant's conduct" ( People v. Madore, 145 A.D.3d at 1442, 46 N.Y.S.3d 300 [citation omitted]; see People v. Roman, 13 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 787 N.Y.S.2d 568 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 802, 795 N.Y.S.2d 178, 828 N.E.2d 94 [2005] ). Detective Eric Clifford testified that, dur......
  • People v. Manigault
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • December 23, 2016
    ...It is well settled that a defendant may be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his actions (see People v. Roman, 13 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 787 N.Y.S.2d 568, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 802, 795 N.Y.S.2d 178, 828 N.E.2d 94 ), and that the element of intent may be inferred from th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT