| People v Brown |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09642 [57 AD3d 260] |
| December 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Venice Brown, Appellant. The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Patreese Johnson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Karen D. Thompson of counsel), forPatreese Johnson, appellant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Susan Axelrod of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 14,2007, convicting defendant Venice Brown, after a jury trial, of gang assault in the second degreeand assault in the third degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of five years,unanimously modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to theextent of vacating the gang assault conviction and remanding for a new trial on that count, andotherwise affirmed.
Judgment, same court and Justice, rendered June 14, 2007, convicting defendant PatreeseJohnson, after a jury trial, of gang assault in the second degree and assault in the first and seconddegrees, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 11 years, 11 years and seven years,respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to theextent of reducing the sentences for the gang assault in the second degree and assault in the firstdegree convictions to eight years each, and otherwise affirmed.
The evidence of defendant Brown's participation in the crime is substantially similar to theevidence received at the same trial against codefendant Renata Hill. Accordingly, for the reasonsstated in our prior decision (People vHill, 52 AD3d 380 [2008]), we conclude that the verdict as to Brown was based onlegally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, but that Brown isentitled to a new trial on the gang assault charge because of the charging errors discussed inHill. We find it unnecessary to reach any other issues raised by [*2]Brown.
Defendant Johnson, who personally stabbed the victim, challenges the sufficiency of theevidence establishing the element of serious physical injury. That claim is unpreserved and wedecline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on themerits. Even without the aid of expert testimony, the jury could have readily inferred from thevictim's testimony and medical records that his stab wounds to his liver and stomach werelife-threatening (see e.g. People vJones, 38 AD3d 352 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 846 [2007]). Johnson'sineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to this issue is likewise without merit.
We find Johnson's sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Mazzarelli,J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.