From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Fleming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1987
134 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

November 30, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant's claim that the evidence adduced by the prosecution failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [a]; § 25.00 [1]). The testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the location, number and severity of the complainant's wounds strongly indicated that the defendant's act of repeatedly stabbing the complainant in the back was not reasonably justified by the circumstances and constituted an excessive use of deadly physical force. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's challenge to the imposition of a mandatory surcharge upon his conviction (see, Penal Law § 60.35) is premature at this juncture (see, People v. Bethea, 133 A.D.2d 836; People v. Williams, 131 A.D.2d 525; People v. Peralta, 127 A.D.2d 803; People v. West, 124 Misc.2d 622). Bracken, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Fleming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 30, 1987
134 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Fleming

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JEROME FLEMING…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 1987

Citations

134 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

A review of the entire charge establishes that the court properly instructed the jury on the defense of…

People v. Lewis

We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in its understanding of the limits of its sentencing…