| People v Wright |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09317 [134 AD3d 1299] |
| December 17, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](December 17, 2015)
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lawrence Wright, Appellant. |
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams,J.), rendered August 7, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the third degree.
Defendant was charged with various offenses in the wake of gunplay at an apartmentcomplex in the City of Kingston, Ulster County. Following a jury trial, he was convictedof the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree. County Court sentenced defendant, a secondfelony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 10 years to be followed by postreleasesupervision of five years. Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. "A person having previously been convicted of a crime is guilty ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when he or she possesses an operablefirearm, and of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when such firearmis loaded" (People v Perry,116 AD3d 1253, 1254 [2014], citing Penal Law §§ 265.01 [1];265.02 [1]; 265.03 [3]). Defendant was arraigned on a special information alleging thathe had previously been convicted of a crime. Contrary to defendant's contention, becausehe admitted the prior conviction, County Court appropriately "submit[ted] the case to thejury without reference thereto" (CPL 200.60 [3] [a]; see People v Cooper, 78NY2d 476, 481-482 [1991]).
Defendant next argues that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In thatregard, Venice Baird testified that his mother became uncomfortable when she noticed agreen [*2]Jaguar parked outside of her apartment, andthat he went outside to confront the driver and ask him to leave. Baird and a neighbor,Michelle Lind, recognized the Jaguar and defendant, the driver, from prior observations.Baird, Lind and others testified to the verbal altercation that ensued and, althoughdefendant drove away to visit an acquaintance in a nearby apartment, Baird expectedfurther trouble. Trouble indeed followed when defendant drove past Baird again, with anangry exchange of words, prompting Baird to throw a stick that damaged the side-viewmirror of the Jaguar. Defendant, wearing a blue latex glove, was then observed to fire apistol out of the driver's side window. Defendant fled and attempted to dispose of theevidence, but investigators located the still-loaded pistol and glove after speaking to hisgirlfriend. The pistol was tested and found to be operable, and a weapons examinerdetermined that a shell casing recovered at the crime scene had been fired from it.Investigators further recovered genetic material from the pistol's trigger that, while notconclusive, strongly suggested that defendant was one of its users. Defendant exploredissues that called the credibility of the eyewitnesses into question but, "viewing theevidence in a neutral light and according appropriate deference to the jury's credibilitydeterminations, we find that defendant's convictions were not against the weight of theevidence" (People v Capers,129 AD3d 1313, 1315 [2015]; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Hailey, 128 AD3d1415, 1416-1417 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 929 [2015]).
McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.