People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 13 June 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04308,118 A.D.3d 1295,987 N.Y.S.2d 772
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shuvon J. WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

118 A.D.3d 1295

987 N.Y.S.2d 772

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04308

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Shuvon J. WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

June 13, 2014.

The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Alan Williams of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, and VALENTINO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51[b] [v] ), criminal contempt in the second degree (§ 215.50[3] ), and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ). We agree with defendant that her conviction under count two of the indictment, charging criminal contempt in the second degree, must be reversed and that count dismissed as a lesser inclusory concurrent count of count one, charging criminal contempt in the first degree ( see People v. Mingo, 66 A.D.3d 1043, 1044–1045, 887 N.Y.S.2d 666,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 843, 901 N.Y.S.2d 149, 927 N.E.2d 570;see also People v. Duperroy, 88 A.D.3d 606, 607, 931 N.Y.S.2d 70,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 957, 944 N.Y.S.2d 485, 967 N.E.2d 710). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.

We reject defendant's contention that the testimony of the police officer at the Wade hearing was incredible as a matter of law ( see generally People v. Spann, 82 A.D.3d 1013, 1014, 918 N.Y.S.2d 588;People v. Donaldson, 35 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 826 N.Y.S.2d 540,lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 984, 838 N.Y.S.2d 487, 869 N.E.2d 663). Defendant preserved for our review her contention that the evidence is legally insufficient only to the extent that she contends that she did not have knowledge of the order of protection and its terms ( see generally People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). We reject that contention inasmuch as “defendant's signature acknowledging receipt of the order of protection establishes that it was served and that [s]he was on notice as to its contents” ( People v. Soler, 52 A.D.3d 938, 940, 859 N.Y.S.2d 514,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 741, 864 N.Y.S.2d 400, 894 N.E.2d 664;cf. People v. Bulgin, 105 A.D.3d 551, 551, 964 N.Y.S.2d 19,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1002, 971 N.Y.S.2d 254, 993 N.E.2d 1276). Defendant's contention that the order of protection was improperly admitted in evidence is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Huntsman, 96 A.D.3d 1387, 1388–1389, 946 N.Y.S.2d 327,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1099, 965 N.Y.S.2d 795, 988 N.E.2d 533), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. The minor inconsistencies in the testimony of two prosecution witnesses did not render their testimony incredible as a matter of law ( see People v. Smith, 73 A.D.3d 1469, 1470, 900 N.Y.S.2d 802,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 778, 907 N.Y.S.2d 467, 933 N.E.2d 1060;People v. McAvoy, 70 A.D.3d 1467, 1468, 894 N.Y.S.2d 270,lv. denied14 N.Y.3d 890, 903 N.Y.S.2d 778, 929 N.E.2d 1013). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that “the jury was justified in finding ... defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” ( id. at 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1).

Defendant contends that the conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree must be reversed because she may have been convicted of an act for which she was not indicted ( see generally People v. McNab, 167 A.D.2d 858, 858, 562 N.Y.S.2d 590). Specifically, defendant contends that the grand jury may have indicted her based on her conduct toward one of the prosecution witnesses, rather than that witness's son. We reject that contention. Although the indictment did not name the victim, the order of protection was issued in favor of the son and not his mother, and the grand jury therefore could not have indicted defendant for her conduct toward the mother.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that she was denied a fair trial based on prosecutorial misconduct during summation ( see People v. Smith, 32 A.D.3d 1291, 1292, 821 N.Y.S.2d 356,lv. denied8 N.Y.3d 849, 830 N.Y.S.2d 708, 862 N.E.2d 800). In any event, to the extent that the prosecutor's remarks were improper, we conclude that they were not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Heck, 103 A.D.3d 1140, 1143, 958 N.Y.S.2d 830,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1074, 974 N.Y.S.2d 323, 997 N.E.2d 148). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review her contentions that County Court gave a misleading jury instruction regarding a confession that was never made by defendant ( see People v. Long, 100 A.D.3d 1343, 1345, 953 N.Y.S.2d 744,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1063, 962 N.Y.S.2d 613, 985 N.E.2d 923), and that the court erred in failing to give a missing witness charge ( see People v. Merrill, 60 A.D.3d 1376, 1376, 875 N.Y.S.2d 408,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 856, 881 N.Y.S.2d 668, 909 N.E.2d 591). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( seeCPL 470.15[6][a] ).

Defendant further contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel based on various errors made by defense counsel. We conclude that defendant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for many of defense counsel's alleged errors ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584). In addition, defendant was “not denied effective assistance of ... counsel merely because counsel [failed to] make a motion or argument that ha[d] little or no chance of success” ( People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, ...