| People v Sparrow |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03395 [117 AD3d 1563] |
| May 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLashorn Sparrow, Appellant. |
Kindlon Shanks and Associates, Albany (Terence Kindlon of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Scott D. McNamara, District Attorney, Utica (Steven G. Cox of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.),rendered August 2, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofassault in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a juryverdict, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [former (3)]).By failing to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal after presenting evidence,defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction is notsupported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61[2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). In any event, that contention iswithout merit (see generallyPeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). The People presented legallysufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant knew that his vehiclehad been pulled over by the police, that the persons outside his vehicle were policeofficers, that the officers were "performing a lawful duty," and that defendant "cause[d]physical injury to [a] police officer" when he backed his vehicle up and drove away(§ 120.05 [former (3)]). In addition, viewing the evidence in light of theelements of the crime as charged to the jury (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349), wereject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (seegenerally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant failed topreserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorialmisconduct (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Montero, 100 AD3d 1555, 1555 [2012], lvdenied 21 NY3d 945 [2013]), and we decline to exercise our power to review thatcontention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6][a]). We reject defendant's further contention that he received ineffective assistance ofcounsel. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case, in totality andas of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel providedmeaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]). Finally, we have considered defendant's remaining contentions and concludethat none requires reversal or modification of the judgment. Present—Scudder,P.J., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.