From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Armstrong

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Dec 23, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

1205 KA 12-01045.

12-23-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony F. ARMSTRONG, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Canandaigua (Mark C. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.


Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Canandaigua (Mark C. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.052 ) and intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree (§ 215.151 ), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to discharge a juror who appeared to be asleep during a portion of the trial. Defendant failed to move to discharge that juror, and thus his contention is not preserved for our review (see People v. Phillips, 34 A.D.3d 1231, 1231, 823 N.Y.S.2d 802, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 848, 830 N.Y.S.2d 707, 862 N.E.2d 799). Indeed, after bringing the matter to the court's attention, defense counsel stated that he did not “want to say anything right now,” and the court stated that it would continue to observe the juror. We thus conclude that “defendant ‘should not now be heard to complain’ of the court's failure to discharge the juror” (id.).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the court failed to comply with CPL 300.10(4) by proceeding with summations before holding its charge conference (see People v. Lugo, 87 A.D.3d 1403, 1404, 930 N.Y.S.2d 114, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 860, 938 N.Y.S.2d 868, 962 N.E.2d 293), and that the indictment was either duplicitous on its face or rendered duplicitous by the testimony at trial (see People v. Allen, 24 N.Y.3d 441, 449–450, 999 N.Y.S.2d 350). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.156[a] ). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Armstrong

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Dec 23, 2015
134 A.D.3d 1401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Armstrong

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY F. ARMSTRONG…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 23, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 1401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9459
21 N.Y.S.3d 655

Citing Cases

People v. Moore

Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient…

People v. Crumpler

Defendant further contends that the court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry into whether a juror was…