| People v Coote |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06611 [110 AD3d 485] |
| October 10, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Weston Coote, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David E.A. Crowley of counsel),for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), renderedMay 12, 2010, as amended May 28, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, ofassault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, toa term of 6½ years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's assault conviction stems from the events that took place in a bar onOctober 15, 2009, when defendant struck the victim in the head with a "pint glass,"causing numerous lacerations to the victim's neck, ear and scalp.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence as to the element of serious physical injury. The element of seriousphysical injury was satisfied by evidence supporting the conclusion that the woundsinflicted by defendant caused serious disfigurement to the victim (see People v McKinnon, 15NY3d 311, 315-316 [2010]). The victim testified that, at the time of trial, six monthsafter the attack, he had scars on the left side of his face, on the front and back of his neck,and on his skull behind his ear. He also testified that he had grown a beard to "blend [thescar on his neck] in so it won't be that noticeable." The treating physician testified that,on the day of the trial, he observed that the scar on the victim's neck "appeared to behypertrophic," which, he explained, means "a bulky scar that's red and almost looks piledup with scar tissue." The testimony of the victim and his treating physician, viewed as awhole, and especially considering the prominent location of the wound on the face,support the inference that at the time of trial the scars remained seriously disfiguringunder the McKinnon standard.
The court properly adjudicated defendant a second violent felony offender basedupon his 2002 guilty plea conviction to assault in the second degree. Defendant's baldassertion that he had not been informed of the postrelease supervision component of hissentence at the time of his plea does not satisfy the burden of establishing that his priorconviction was unconstitutionally obtained. It was incumbent on defendant to comeforward to prove his claim (CPL 400.21 [7] [b]), and the trial court did not err by relyingon the presumption of regularity (see People v Hodges, 194 AD2d 484 [1st Dept1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 720 [1993]).[*2]
Finally, we find that defendant's sentence, whichwas less than the maximum, was not excessive in light of his significant record and thefact that this was a senseless act of violence that could have easily resulted in moresevere injuries than it did. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta andRenwick, JJ.