Opinion
11-10-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeffrey HOUGHTALING, Defendant–Appellant.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant. Jeffrey Houghtaling, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. R. Michael Tantillo, Special Prosecutor, Canandaigua, for Respondent.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Defendant–Appellant.
Jeffrey Houghtaling, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
R. Michael Tantillo, Special Prosecutor, Canandaigua, for Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of bail jumping in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.56 ). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Contrary to defendant's contention, the People were not required to prove that defendant received notice of the trial date inasmuch as “the crime of bail jumping does not require proof of any culpable mental state” (People v. White, 115 A.D.2d 313, 314, 496 N.Y.S.2d 187 ). In any event, the evidence established that defendant had constructive knowledge of the trial date (see id. ). We therefore conclude that the People met their burden of presenting legally sufficient evidence to establish defendant's guilt “even in the absence of direct proof that he actually received notice of the [trial] date” ( People v. De Stefano, 29 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 814 N.Y.S.2d 768 ). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime 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 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 County Court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when the prosecutor elicited testimony from a witness in violation of the court's Molineux ruling. “ ‘Any prejudice to defendant that might have arisen from the mention of uncharged criminal activity was alleviated when [the c]ourt sustained defendant's objection and gave prompt curative instructions to the jury’ ” (People v. Reyes–Paredes, 13 A.D.3d 1094, 1095, 787 N.Y.S.2d 793, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 802, 795 N.Y.S.2d 177, 828 N.E.2d 93 ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court properly concluded that it was not required to entertain his pro se motion to dismiss the indictment because at the time defendant made the motion he was represented by counsel (see People v. Rodriguez, 95 N.Y.2d 497, 501–502, 719 N.Y.S.2d 208, 741 N.E.2d 882 ) and, in any event, there is no indication in the record that the motion was properly filed in accordance with the requirements of CPL 255.20(1).
We reject defendant's contention that trial counsel was ineffective in stipulating to the admission of transcripts from the trial at which defendant failed to appear. “[D]efendant has not demonstrated ‘the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for [defense] counsel's' stipulation” (People v. Johnson, 30 A.D.3d 1042, 1043, 816 N.Y.S.2d 258, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 790, 821 N.Y.S.2d 820, 854 N.E.2d 1284, reconsideration denied 7 N.Y.3d 902, 826 N.Y.S.2d 612, 860 N.E.2d 74, quoting People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698 ). We also reject defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective in moving to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 on the ground that it was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although we agree with defendant that the motion was without merit inasmuch as trial judges are not authorized to set aside a verdict on that ground (see People v. Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530, 536, 483 N.Y.S.2d 654, 473 N.E.2d 6 ; People v. Lleshi, 100 A.D.3d 780, 780, 953 N.Y.S.2d 674, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1012, 960 N.Y.S.2d 355, 984 N.E.2d 330 ), defendant was not thereby denied a fair trial (see generally People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 188–189, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19 ). The record belies defendant's contention that defense counsel was otherwise ineffective (see generally People v. Demus, 82 A.D.3d 1667, 1668, 919 N.Y.S.2d 664, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 815, 929 N.Y.S.2d 804, 954 N.E.2d 95 ).
Finally, defendant's contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the court should have recused itself is not properly before us inasmuch as it is based upon “facts ... developed in connection with defendant's [renewed] motion to vacate the conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, but defendant did not obtain permission to appeal from the order denying that motion” (People v. Russin, 277 A.D.2d 880, 881, 716 N.Y.S.2d 217 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.