From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 2002
298 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-05987

Argued September 19, 2002.

October 7, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered June 17, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Starkey, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anne C. Feigus of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his suppression motion was properly denied because the police had probable cause to arrest him (see People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423; People v. Samms, 258 A.D.2d 676, affd as modified 95 N.Y.2d 52; People v. Harris, 245 A.D.2d 302; People v. Bond, 227 A.D.2d 412, affd 90 N.Y.2d 877).

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that the victim suffered a physical injury is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the victim suffered a physical injury within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). The record shows that the victim was repeatedly punched and kicked, and then slashed in the face, head, and arm with a box cutter. He received hospital treatment for the six lacerations caused by the box cutter, which were as large as four inches in length, and required 74 stitches (see People v. Shannon, 273 A.D.2d 505; People v. Broadwater, 259 A.D.2d 1053; People v. McKinney, 195 A.D.2d 1003; People v. Murray, 156 A.D.2d 722; People v. Esquilin, 141 A.D.2d 838).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 2002
298 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JOHN DIXON, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 7, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 232

Citing Cases

Dixon v. Miller

On October 7, 2002, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed petitioner's judgment of conviction. People…

People v. Simpson

The factual findings and credibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on…