People v. Jarvis

Full title: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. David JARVIS, appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 5, 2012

101 A.D.3d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

955 N.Y.S.2d 367

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8332

Opinion

2012-12-5

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. David JARVIS, appellant.

Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Ames C. Grawert of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and Ames C. Grawert of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered April 15, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant manifested the requisite criminal intent ( see People v. Bracey, 41 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094;People v. Mendez, 34 A.D.3d 697, 698, 824 N.Y.S.2d 416;People v. Coulter, 240 A.D.2d 756, 660 N.Y.S.2d 43). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902). Any discrepancies between the complainant's prior statements to a police officer, the complainant's grand jury testimony, and the complainant's trial testimony “were not of such magnitude as to render the complainant's testimony incredible or unreliable” ( People v. Scipio, 61 A.D.3d 899, 899, 878 N.Y.S.2d 747). Moreover, the discrepancies were insufficient to render the complainant's testimony perjurious ( seePenal Law §§ 210.05, 210.10, 210.15; People v. Scipio, 61 A.D.3d at 899, 878 N.Y.S.2d 747;People v. Hansen, 290 A.D.2d 47, 51–52, 736 N.Y.S.2d 743; People v. Bishop, 206 A.D.2d 884, 885, 615 N.Y.S.2d 163;People v. Kitchen, 162 A.D.2d 178, 179, 556 N.Y.S.2d 311).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.