Opinion
2021-06262
11-12-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. AZYA M. GILBERT, ALSO KNOWN AS AZYA JACKSON/AZYA GILBERT-JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DANIELLE C. WILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KAYLAN C. PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DANIELLE C. WILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (KAYLAN C. PORTER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered March 7, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). Defendant contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to her intent to cause serious physical injury. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Given the number, depth, and severity of the stab wounds here, it cannot be said that the jury "failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" (id.; see People v Angel, 185 A.D.2d 356, 358 [2d Dept 1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 1025 [1992]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review her further contention that she was denied a fair trial by alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hall, 169 A.D.3d 1379, 1380 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 976 [2019]; People v Keels, 128 A.D.3d 1444, 1445 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 969 [2015]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.