Opinion
March 8, 1991
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Green, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant's contention that the People failed to establish that he had the necessary intent to commit the crimes charged in the indictment. Whether defendant was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the requisite intent to be guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted raised issues of fact and credibility for the jury to resolve (see, People v Lang, 143 A.D.2d 685; People v Danaher, 115 A.D.2d 905, 906; People v Scott, 111 A.D.2d 45, 46). The jury chose to resolve those issues in the People's favor. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction.
Upon our review of the record and consideration of the relevant factors (see, People v Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, 333-334, affd sub nom. People v Dawn Maria C., 67 N.Y.2d 625), we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant's application for youthful offender treatment (see, People v Ortega, 114 A.D.2d 912, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 887). Finally, the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive.