From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 28, 2001.

October 22, 2001.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered June 22, 1999, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, under Indictment No. 11224/98, upon a jury verdict, (2) a judgment of the same court (Pesce, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, convicting him of attempted possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under Indictment No. 6641/96, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court (Pesce, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Felchman, J.), upon a finding that the defendant violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, under Indictment No. 12026/93, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Florence M. Sullivan, and Daniela Conti Maiorana of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgments and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Indictment No. 11224/98 is without merit. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), it was legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant acted with the intent to cause serious physical injury to the decedent, thereby establishing his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law §§ 10.10[10], 125.20; People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274; People v. Faison, 265 A.D.2d 422; People v. Struss, 228 A.D.2d 711). Moreover, upon our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt under Indictment No. 11224/98 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The sentences imposed upon the defendant are not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 22, 2001
287 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Mills

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. LEOPOLD MILLS, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 873

Citing Cases

State v. Love

In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60…

People v. Mills

While a great deal of information is missing, the Court has been able to reconstruct information relevant to…