Opinion
2021-04454
07-16-2021
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ANACIN L. HYMES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
JEFFREY WICKS, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
JEFFREY WICKS, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered October 9, 2013. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered April 27, 2018, decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings (160 A.D.3d 1386 [4th Dept 2018]). The proceedings were held and completed.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). On a prior appeal, we noted that defendant made a motion for a trial order of dismissal, but that Supreme Court failed to issue a ruling on that part of the motion with respect to the resisting arrest charge. We therefore held the case, reserved decision and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for such a ruling (People v Hymes, 160 A.D.3d 1386, 1387-1388 [4th Dept 2018]). Upon remittal, the court denied that part of the motion.
We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of resisting arrest (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant's contention, "[t]o support a conviction for resisting arrest, it is not necessary that the person be informed verbally that he [or she] is being arrested; it is sufficient that such knowledge be inferable from the facts and circumstances" (People v Maturevitz, 149 A.D.2d 908, 908 [4th Dept 1989]).
Here, the proof at trial established that a uniformed officer identified himself as a police officer and ordered defendant not to move. Defendant responded by fleeing, jumping over a fence, and attempting to evade other officers he thereafter encountered. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that, under these circumstances, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction of resisting arrest (see People v Bell, 265 A.D.2d 813, 814 [4th Dept 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 916 [2000]; People v Gray, 189 A.D.2d 922, 922-923 [3d Dept 1993], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 886 [1993]; Maturevitz, 149 A.D.2d at 908-909). We addressed the other contentions raised by defendant in our prior decision and concluded that none required modification or reversal of the judgment (see Hymes, 160 A.D.3d at 1387-1388).