Opinion
2012-02-14
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maxine NORFLEET, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Angie Louie of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Deborah L. Morse of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Angie Louie of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Deborah L. Morse of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered July 14, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to concurrent terms of 9 years, and otherwise affirmed.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the physical injury element of one of her robbery convictions ( see Penal Law § 160.10[2][a] ). That claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its assessment of the victim's characterization of her injuries ( see People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630, 636, 612 N.Y.S.2d 350, 634 N.E.2d 951 [1994] ).
The evidence established that defendant and her accomplices assaulted the victim for several minutes in order to take her jewelry. The victim testified that she sustained scrapes, scratches, and bruises, causing significant pain. In addition, the victim sought medical treatment and received prescription-strength pain medication. Accordingly, the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence ( see Penal Law § 10.00[9]; People v. Chiddick, 8 N.Y.3d 445, 447, 834 N.Y.S.2d 710, 866 N.E.2d 1039 [2007] ).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.