From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Flowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 5, 1991
178 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 5, 1991

Appeal from the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.).


Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment was not preserved for appellate review insofar as he failed to raise an objection thereto at the time of his guilty plea (see, CPL 470.05; People v Di Noia, 105 A.D.2d 799, lv denied 64 N.Y.2d 759, cert denied 471 U.S. 1022; People v Torres, 96 A.D.2d 604). In any event, defendant's claim that the broomstick handle used in the assault was not a dangerous instrument under the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 120.05) is without merit. The circumstances under which the handle was used made it capable of causing serious physical injury (see, Penal Law § 10.00; People v Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113; People v Naylor, 120 A.D.2d 940, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 714); defendant was therefore properly charged under Penal Law § 120.05 (2). Defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Flowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 5, 1991
178 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Flowers

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DENFIELD FLOWERS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 5, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 155

Citing Cases

People v. Zeman

We reject that contention. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury,…

People v. Zeman

; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In particular, the credible evidence established…