| People v Seymore |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03696 [106 AD3d 1033] |
| May 22, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Clifton L. Seymore, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael Blakey of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Hudson, J.), rendered July 2, 2008, convicting him of attempted murder in the seconddegree, assault in the first degree, aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in thesecond degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of crimes including attemptedmurder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, arising from his assault on thecomplainant with a knife, during which the defendant stabbed the complainant in theneck and jaw. At trial, the defendant proffered a justification defense and testified that hestabbed the complainant in self-defense when she threatened him with a screwdriver.
With respect to the count of attempted murder in the second degree, viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant'sjustification defense and to prove every element of that crime, including the intentelement, beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 35.15). Moreover,upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we aresatisfied that the jury's rejection of the justification defense and the verdict of guilt on thecount of attempted murder in the second degree were not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
With respect to the count of assault in the first degree, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justificationdefense and to prove every element of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of assault in the first degree was not againstthe weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Specifically, [*2]the evidence of the complainant's stab wounds to the neckand jaw was sufficient to establish that she sustained "serious physical injury" (PenalLaw §§ 10.00 [10]; 120.10 [1]).
The defendant's contention that the length of the sentences imposed improperlypenalized him for exercising his constitutional rights to a jury trial and to remain silentduring his sentencing is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hurley,75 NY2d 887 [1990]; People vRomero, 101 AD3d 906 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1103 [2013]). Inany event, the contention is without merit. "The fact that the sentence imposed after trialwas greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations is not, standing alone, anindication that the defendant was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial" (People v Griffin, 98 AD3d688, 690 [2012]; see People v Romero, 101 AD3d at 907). Here, a review ofthe record reveals no retaliation or vindictiveness against the defendant for electing toproceed to trial and for remaining silent at his sentencing. Rather, in imposing sentence,the County Court properly considered factors including the defendant's lack of remorseand the heinous nature of the crimes (see People v Garcia, 46 AD3d 573, 573-574 [2007]).Moreover, under these circumstances, the imposition of an aggregate term ofimprisonment of 24 years was not excessive (see People v Crandall, 172 AD2d618 [1991]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, areunpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Angiolillo, J.P.,Chambers, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.