Opinion
02-03-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George C. HERRING, Defendant–Appellant.
Stephen Bird, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
Stephen Bird, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted aggravated murder (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.26[1][a][i] ; [b] ) and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peace officer (§§ 110.00, 120.11 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. A police officer testified that he was responding to a dispatch regarding multiple gun shots fired when he encountered defendant, who matched the description of one of the suspects. The officer exited his vehicle and shouted to defendant to "hold up a second." Defendant at first lunged forward as if he were preparing to run away, but then he suddenly stopped, turned around, said "F* * * this," and pulled out a handgun and fired three shots in the officer's direction. After a foot chase, defendant was apprehended in a backyard. The following morning, the police found a handgun on a rooftop in the vicinity of the backyard where defendant had been arrested, and a ballistics test determined that it was the gun that had fired three casings collected at the scene of the crime. After defendant was arrested, an officer observed that defendant had a cut on his hand between his thumb and index finger, and the previous owner of the handgun testified that he had sustained a similar cut on his hand after firing the weapon. Finally, the People introduced evidence that DNA from a bloodstain found on the gun matched defendant's DNA. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we conclude that a different verdict would have been unreasonable and thus that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
We reject defendant's contention that defense counsel's summation deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel's theory of police fabrication and malfeasance was " ‘a reasonable trial strategy in the face of strong opposing evidence’ " (People v. Maxwell, 103 A.D.3d 1239, 1241, 959 N.Y.S.2d 358, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 945, 968 N.Y.S.2d 7, 990 N.E.2d 141 ; see People v. Zada [Appeal No. 1], 98 A.D.2d 733, 733, 469 N.Y.S.2d 147 ; see generally People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712–713, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.