From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1993
191 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 15, 1993

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

A hotel service desk clerk testified that during the robbery, she observed that the defendant, who was wearing a white vinyl jacket, was holding a shotgun, the barrel of which was approximately an arm's length. Her testimony further established that the defendant continued to possess the shotgun when he and his accomplice directed her into a small office behind the service desk area, as well as at the time when the defendant directed her to leave the office. The evidence indicates also that the first shotgun blast was fired shortly after she complied with the defendant's directive and exited the office. That first blast struck close to Sergeant Stephen Marello, who had responded to the hotel pursuant to a secret alarm activated by the hotel clerk, causing debris to fall onto his shoulder, and approximately eight inches away from his face.

At bar, there were minor inconsistencies in the testimony pertaining to whether or not the arm which displayed the shotgun prior to this first blast was that of the defendant. This issue was placed before the finder of fact, and resolved in favor of the prosecution. In any event, whether or not the defendant was the person who fired the first shotgun blast at the police officer, he was still criminally responsible for that blast, since he was clearly acting in concert with his cohort (see, People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830).

We further find that the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper (see, People v. Day, 73 N.Y.2d 208). The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or meritless. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1993
191 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FREDERICK CLARK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 15, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
595 N.Y.S.2d 87

Citing Cases

People v. Parisi

We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15 [c];…

People v. Clark

July 15, 2002. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…