From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 1993
193 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 24, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 90-00802 is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the indictment is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 90-01972 is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of reckless endangerment in the first degree under Indictment No. 90-00802. The evidence adduced at trial revealed that the defendant fired two shots from a gun while standing near a group of young men. One shot hit a parked grey Monte Carlo. The other hit a wooden garage door approximately 30 feet away. However, no evidence was adduced at trial with regard to what the defendant was aiming at when he fired the gun or whether any person was in or near the line of fire.

A conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree requires a showing that the defendant, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person (Penal Law § 120.25). The facts of the instant case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reveal that the defendant fired two shots which struck two objects; however, this conduct does not establish that the defendant acted under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, or that he created a grave risk of death (see, People v Sallito, 125 A.D.2d 345, 346; People v Richardson, 97 A.D.2d 693; People v Wilkens, 97 A.D.2d 698). In view of the foregoing, Indictment No. 90-00802 must be dismissed.

The defendant's subsequent plea of guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 90-01972, is affirmed, since the plea was neither based nor conditioned upon the reckless endangerment conviction. Indeed, the court specifically noted that the plea was "in no way connected or contingent upon any appeal that may take place on the reckless endangerment in the first degree charge". Further, appellate review of the issue raised by defendant in regard to his agreed-upon sentence was effectively waived by him as part of his plea bargain. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction under Indictment No. 90-01972 is affirmed (see, People v Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273; People v Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1). Eiber, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Bennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 1993
193 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Bennett

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROHAN BENNETT…

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

Date published: May 24, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 84

Citing Cases

United States v. Crocker

We agree. Contrary to the People's contention that the defendant's conduct endangered unspecified "residents…

People v. Thompson

Alexander testified that she was walking down the street when defendant's minivan pulled up alongside…