From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Duran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 8, 2004
6 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

11705, 14019.

Decided and Entered April 8, 2004.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Lawliss, J.), rendered November 10, 1999, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of said court, entered March 27, 2002, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, after a hearing.

James Edward Gross, Albany, for appellant.

Ronald J. Briggs, District Attorney, Elizabethtown, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant, an inmate at Adirondack Correctional Facility in Essex County, was charged in an indictment with committing the crimes of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a correction officer discovered a four-inch sharpened piece of metal hidden in defendant's locker. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced on each count to concurrent prison terms of 3¼ to 6½ years, to run consecutively to the sentence he was serving at the time of the discovery of the metal shank. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and, by permission, from the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. We now affirm.

With respect to the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion, defendant contends that County Court violated his right to due process when it limited his direct examination of his trial counsel. County Court "has broad discretion in controlling the conduct of the [hearing], which includes limiting the scope of direct, cross, and redirect examination" (Ingebretsen v Manha, 218 A.D.2d 784, 784; see People v Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882, 883-884; People v Liriano, 177 A.D.2d 423, 424, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949). Here, County Court limited the subject of the hearing to two topics: (1) whether counsel told defendant that the court had said that defendant should not testify, and (2) counsel's alleged failure to call a witness who kept inmate grievance records. In our view, County Court did not abuse its discretion in restraining defendant's examination to keep it relevant to the limited purposes of the hearing.

Turning to the direct appeal, defendant asserts that his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was based on legally insufficient evidence. In particular, defendant argues that the People failed to establish the requisite intent to unlawfully use the shank ( see Penal Law § 265.01; § 265.02[1]). A person who possesses a "weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon" is presumed to "inten[d] to use the same unlawfully against another" (Penal Law § 265.15; see People v Hammond, 291 A.D.2d 779, 780; People v Slade, 140 A.D.2d 885, 887). Here, the jury could infer that the metal shank, which was hidden in a padlocked locker located in defendant's dormitory room and to which only defendant had the combination, was in his constructive possession ( see Penal Law § 10.00; People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 573). Inasmuch as defendant did not rebut the presumption of intent, we conclude that a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury" exists ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; see People v Almarez, 2 A.D.3d 1151, 1152). Thus, it cannot be said that the evidence was legally insufficient to support defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Defendant's remaining contentions do not require extended discussion. We are unpersuaded that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance. Trial counsel effectively cross-examined witnesses, made objections, and delivered opening and closing statements advancing his theory of the case, leading to the conclusion that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Pagan, 304 A.D.2d 980, 981, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 564). Nor were the People required to turn over material from a prison disciplinary hearing to the defense, as defendant asserts. The People did not have possession or control of the material and were under "no obligation to attempt to locate and gain possession of" such material (People v Livingston, 262 A.D.2d 786, 790, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 881; see People v Howard, 87 N.Y.2d 940, 941).

We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment and order are affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Duran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 8, 2004
6 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Duran

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOAQUIN DURAN…

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

Date published: Apr 8, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 390

Citing Cases

Sylvester v. Vinegar Hill Asset, LLC

The defendant also failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the gates defective condition.…

State v. Edwards

Defendant contends, with respect to all four convictions, that insufficient evidence exists to support a…