Opinion
9271 Ind. 230/14
05-09-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jovanny PAULINO, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Scott H. Henney of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Megan DeMarco of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Scott H. Henney of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Megan DeMarco of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kahn, Oing, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), rendered August 5, 2016, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The totality of defendant's conduct supports the inference that, at least at the moment he stabbed the victim in the abdomen, he did so with homicidal intent (see e. g. People v. Galarza, 127 A.D.3d 407, 4 N.Y.S.3d 500 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1163, 15 N.Y.S.3d 295, 36 N.E.3d 98 [2015] ).
Defendant also failed to preserve his challenges to evidence that he had access at his workplace to knives of the type that could have been used in the homicide, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the court's evidentiary rulings were correct (see People v. Del Vermo, 192 N.Y. 470, 478–482, 85 N.E. 690 [1908] ).
We have considered and rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to the lack of preservation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998] ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ).
We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence.