| People v Jordan |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07071 [77 AD3d 406] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KerryJordan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Lindsey M. Kneipper of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered May 19, 2008,convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the firstdegree (five counts), assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's arguments concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence are limited to hisconviction of one count of criminal contempt in the first degree arising from letters he sent to the victimfrom prison in violation of an order of protection. The evidence supports the conclusion that the letterswere intended to place the victim "in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death"(Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [ii]), as they contained numerous references to death and violence, andwere made after defendant had already engaged in a pattern of violent conduct against the victim.Accordingly, we find that this verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]).
Since defendant never articulated a specific double jeopardy argument, he did not preserve hispresent claim that his conviction of three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree arising fromevents that occurred on March 14, 2006 constituted multiple punishments for the same offense, and wedecline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits,because each of these counts required proof of a fact that the others did not (see Blockburger vUnited States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932]).
Defendant's challenge to his conviction of assault in the third degree is unpreserved and we declineto review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire,Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.