| People v Lawing |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07079 [110 AD3d 1354] |
| October 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jermel Lawing, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Shirley Huang of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County(Williams, J.), rendered April 18, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of thecrimes of criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts), criminal contempt in thesecond degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
Defendant allegedly violated on three separate occasions—March 12, 2010,April 13, 2010 and April 21, 2010—an order of protection directing him not tohave contact with his former girlfriend or their child. On each occasion, he entered theformer girlfriend's home and reportedly had a physical altercation with her. The April 21,2010 incident occurred in the presence of their then two-year-old child and involveddefendant hitting, throwing down and choking the former girlfriend. He was indicted onthree counts of criminal contempt in the first degree and one count of endangering thewelfare of a child. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of two counts of criminalcontempt in the first degree arising from the March 12, 2010 and April 21, 2010incidents, a lesser-included count of criminal contempt in the second degree for the April13, 2010 incident, and endangering the welfare of a child. County Court sentenced himto consecutive prison terms of 1
The convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence. "In reviewingwhether a jury verdict is supported by sufficient evidence, we 'must determine whetherthere is any valid [*2]line of reasoning and permissibleinferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on thebasis of the evidence at trial' " (People v Clark, 65 AD3d 755, 757 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 906 [2009], quoting People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Contrary to defendant's contention that the People failed to establish that theorder of protection was in effect on the pertinent dates, the order—which wasreceived into evidence—is dated March 6, 2009 and states that it remains in effectuntil March 6, 2011, a time frame which encompasses the dates of defendant's allegedviolations of the order. As for the conviction of endangering the welfare of a child, theproof regarding the child's very close proximity in witnessing the physical assault on thechild's mother on April 21, 2010, as well as the nature of the assault, was sufficient touphold the conviction of that crime (see People v Bell, 80 AD3d 891, 891 [2011]; People v Lewis, 46 AD3d943, 945-946 [2007]; People v Van Guilder, 29 AD3d 1226, 1228 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 796 [2006]).
Defendant received the effective assistance of counsel. "So long as the evidence, thelaw, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time ofthe representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, theconstitutional requirement will have been met" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,147 [1981] [citations omitted]). Review of the record reveals that counsel, among otherthings, conducted probing cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, successfullyargued for a missing witness charge, made an effective closing argument and obtained aconviction on a lesser included offense on one of the charges. The representationprovided was, under all the circumstances, meaningful (see People v Rogers, 94 AD3d1246, 1251 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 977 [2012]).
We are unpersuaded by defendant's argument that imposing consecutive sentences onthe two convictions for criminal contempt in the first degree was illegal or, alternatively,harsh and excessive. The two crimes involved separate and distinct acts committed over amonth apart and, thus, consecutive sentences were clearly legally permissible (see People v Collins, 56 AD3d809, 811 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 923 [2009]; People v Munoz, 50 AD3d1316, 1317 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 962 [2008]). In light of defendant'slong history of low-level crimes, blaming of the former girlfriend, failure to takeresponsibility for his actions, repeated willingness to violate a court order, and continuedresort to domestic violence when violating the order, we conclude that County Courtacted well within its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences, and we find noextraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction thereof (see People v White, 23 AD3d764, 765 [2005]; People vRedeye, 8 AD3d 829, 830 [2004]; People v Bonilla, 285 AD2d 746,748 [2001]).
Peters, P.J., Rose and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.