| People v Delp |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 09039 [156 AD3d 1450] |
| December 22, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald J. Delp, Appellant. |
David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Joseph G. Frazier of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Caroline A. Wojtaszek, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara Sheldon, J.), rendered February17, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, kidnapping in thesecond degree as a sexually motivated felony, sexual abuse in the third degree, sexual abuse inthe first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the lawby vacating the sentence imposed on the conviction of kidnapping in the second degree as asexually motivated felony, and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remittedto Niagara County Court for resentencing on that count.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, interalia, kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony (Penal Law§§ 130.91 [2]; 135.20), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65[2]), and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject defendant'scontention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Although defendant faults defensecounsel for failing to make a number of objections at trial, we conclude that the objections hadlittle or no chance of success (see Peoplev Prescott, 125 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d1004 [2016]). Defense counsel also was not ineffective for making "frivolous" objections at trialinasmuch as those objections in no way prejudiced defendant (see generally People v Lott, 55 AD3d1274, 1275 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 898 [2008], reconsiderationdenied 12 NY3d 760 [2009]). Further, while defense counsel's decision to call characterwitnesses opened the door to cross-examination referencing unfavorable propensity evidence,"[v]iewed objectively, the transcript . . . reveal[s] the existence of a trial strategythat might well have been pursued by a reasonably competent attorney [and] . . . [i]tis not for this [C]ourt to second-guess whether a course chosen by defendant's counsel was thebest trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningfulrepresentation" (People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799-800 [1985]). We haveconsidered defendant's remaining contentions concerning defense counsel's allegedineffectiveness and likewise conclude that they are without merit.
As defendant correctly concedes, he failed to preserve for our review his contention that theevidence is legally insufficient to establish that he "abduct[ed]" the victim (Penal Law§ 135.20), and did so for the purpose of his "own direct sexual gratification" asrequired under the statute (§ 130.91 [1]), inasmuch as he failed to move for a trialorder of dismissal on that ground (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In anyevent, we reject that contention. The term "[a]bduct" is defined in relevant part as "restrain[ing] aperson with intent to prevent his [or her] liberation by . . . secreting or holding him[or her] in a place where he [or she] is not likely to be found" (§ 135.00 [2] [a]).The People established that the victim was secreted in a place in which he was unlikely to befound, both when he was riding in defendant's car (see People v Manning, 151 AD3d 1936, 1937 [4th Dept 2017],lv denied 30 NY3d 951 [2017]; People v Barnette, 150 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2d Dept 2017], lvdenied 29 NY3d 1123 [2017]), and when he [*2]was indefendant's apartment (see People vDenson, 26 NY3d 179, 189 [2015]). Moreover, defendant's intent to prevent the victim'sliberation may be inferred from defendant's conduct, particularly because, even when defendantwas out with the victim in public, he lied about his relationship to the victim, and also instructedthe victim to do so (see People vAntonio, 58 AD3d 515, 516 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009];see generally Denson, 26 NY3d at 189). Further, defendant's conduct supports theinference that defendant abducted the victim for his own sexual gratification (see People v Owens, 149 AD3d1561, 1563 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 982 [2017]). Such an inference is"clearly appropriate" in the instant case, where defendant made sexually explicit comments to thevictim and rubbed himself against the victim while allowing the victim to sit on his lap and steerthe vehicle (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Judware, 75 AD3d 841, 844-845 [3d Dept 2010],lv denied 15 NY3d 853 [2010]). Thus, viewed in the light most favorable to the People(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence is legally sufficient toestablish the kidnapping conviction. Moreover, viewing the evidence in light of the elements ofthe crimes as charged to the jury (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we further conclude that the verdict isnot against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,495 [1987]).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We note, however, that a discrepancy betweenthe sentencing minutes and the certificate of conviction requires vacatur of the sentence imposedon the conviction of kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony. At thesentencing hearing, County Court originally sentenced defendant to a determinate sentence of 25years, plus five years of postrelease supervision, on the conviction of kidnapping in the seconddegree as a sexually motivated felony. The court thereafter, noting that defendant's conviction ofkidnapping in the second degree was as a sexually motivated felony, instead imposed a period of20 years of postrelease supervision. The certificate of conviction, however, recites that thesentence for the conviction of kidnapping in the second degree is 25 years of imprisonment, plusfive years of postrelease supervision. Given the discrepancy between the sentencing minutes andthe certificate of conviction, we modify the judgment by vacating the sentence imposed on theconviction of kidnapping in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony, and we remit thematter to County Court for resentencing on that count (see generally People v Bradford, 118 AD3d 1254, 1257-1258 [4thDept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1082 [2014]; People v Jacobson, 60 AD3d 1326, 1329 [4th Dept 2009], lvdenied 12 NY3d 916 [2009]).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none requiresreversal or further modification of the judgment. Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni,DeJoseph, Curran and Winslow, JJ.