People v Splunge

2018 NY Slip Op 01506 [159 AD3d 1136]

March 8, 2018

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, May 2, 2018

[*1]

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Billy Joe Splunge, Appellant.

Craig Meyerson, Peru, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Emily A. Schultz of counsel), forrespondent.

Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.),rendered June 12, 2015, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal contempt inthe first degree.

Defendant was charged with various crimes in a seven-count indictment stemming from hisacts in allegedly violating an order of protection that directed him to, among other things, stayaway and have no telephone or electronic contact with his ex-girlfriend (hereinafter the victim).Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt in the first degree andacquitted of the remaining counts. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant, as a secondfelony offender, to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. Defendant appeals. We affirm.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the evidence was not legally sufficient tosupport the jury's verdict. Defendant, however, failed to preserve this contention for review giventhat he made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case-in-chief (see People v Stacconi, 151 AD3d1395, 1396 [2017]; People vMorgan, 149 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2017]; People v Ressy, 141 AD3d 839, 840 [2016], lv denied 28NY3d 1030 [2016]). In any event, defendant's assertion is without merit. The People adducedproof at trial that defendant was advised of an order of protection prohibiting him from havingtelephone contact with the victim, he made multiple calls and left voice messages for her, thevictim felt upset and scared by these communications and there was no legitimate purpose forsuch contact (see Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [iv]; People v Clark, 65 AD3d 755,758-759 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 906 [2009]; [*2]People v Soler, 52 AD3d 938,940 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 741 [2008]; People v McCowan, 45 AD3d 888, 889 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 1007 [2007]; People vTomasky, 36 AD3d 1025, 1026 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 927 [2007]).

McCarthy, J.P., Devine, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.