Opinion
107927
03-08-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Billy Joe SPLUNGE, Appellant.
Craig Meyerson, Peru, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Emily A. Schultz of counsel), for respondent.
Craig Meyerson, Peru, for appellant.
P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Emily A. Schultz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Aarons, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.), rendered June 12, 2015, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree.
Defendant was charged with various crimes in a seven-count indictment stemming from his acts in allegedly violating an order of protection that directed him to, among other things, stay away and have no telephone or electronic contact with his ex-girlfriend (hereinafter the victim). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree and acquitted of the remaining counts. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals. We affirm.
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Defendant, however, failed to preserve this contention for review given that he made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case-in-chief (see People v. Stacconi, 151 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 58 N.Y.S.3d 201 [2017] ; People v. Morgan, 149 A.D.3d 1148, 1149, 51 N.Y.S.3d 218 [2017] ; People v. Ressy, 141 A.D.3d 839, 840, 35 N.Y.S.3d 762 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1030, 45 N.Y.S.3d 382, 68 N.E.3d 111 [2016] ). In any event, defendant's assertion is without merit. The People adduced proof at trial that defendant was advised of an order of protection prohibiting him from having telephone contact with the victim, he made multiple calls and left voice messages for her, the victim felt upset and scared by these communications and there was no legitimate purpose for such contact (see Penal Law § 215.51[b][iv] ; People v. Clark, 65 A.D.3d 755, 758–759, 883 N.Y.S.2d 824 [2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 906, 895 N.Y.S.2d 320, 922 N.E.2d 909 [2009] ; People v. Soler, 52 A.D.3d 938, 940, 859 N.Y.S.2d 514 [2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 741, 864 N.Y.S.2d 400, 894 N.E.2d 664 [2008] ; People v. McCowan, 45 A.D.3d 888, 889, 845 N.Y.S.2d 160 [2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 1007, 850 N.Y.S.2d 395, 880 N.E.2d 881 [2007] ; People v. Tomasky, 36 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 828 N.Y.S.2d 625 [2007], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 927, 834 N.Y.S.2d 518, 866 N.E.2d 464 [2007] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.