Opinion
2013-11-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles E. SHELTON, Defendant–Appellant.
Easton Thompson Kasperek Shiffrin LLP, Rochester (Brian Shiffrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
Easton Thompson Kasperek Shiffrin LLP, Rochester (Brian Shiffrin of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10[1] ) and two counts of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2], [3] ). The charges stem from an incident during which defendant used his vehicle to run over the victim, who sustained serious physical injuries.
Before sentencing, defendant moved to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30(1), contending, inter alia, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his former defense attorney never fully explained the specific nature of a plea offer and never informed defendant of the possibility that he could be indicted on a more serious charge or that the more serious charge had a mandatory determinate term of incarceration. We conclude that County Court properly denied the motion.
It is well settled that “[t]he basis for vacating a jury verdict prior to sentencing is strictly circumscribed by CPL 330.30 to allow vacatur only if reversal would have been mandated on appeal as a matter of law” ( People v. Tillman, 273 A.D.2d 913, 913, 709 N.Y.S.2d 765,lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 939, 721 N.Y.S.2d 615, 744 N.E.2d 151 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Sheltray, 244 A.D.2d 854, 854, 665 N.Y.S.2d 224,lv. denied91 N.Y.2d 897, 669 N.Y.S.2d 12, 691 N.E.2d 1038). The statute is a limitation on a trial court's “jurisdiction” ( People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329,rearg. denied97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396;see People v. Davidson, 299 A.D.2d 830, 831, 751 N.Y.S.2d 336,lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 613, 757 N.Y.S.2d 824, 787 N.E.2d 1170), i.e., the “power” ( People v. Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530, 536, 483 N.Y.S.2d 654, 473 N.E.2d 6), or “ ‘authority’ ” to set aside a verdict ( Sheltray, 244 A.D.2d at 854, 665 N.Y.S.2d 224;see People v. Adams, 13 A.D.3d 316, 317, 788 N.Y.S.2d 36,following remittal52 A.D.3d 243, 859 N.Y.S.2d 170,lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 829, 868 N.Y.S.2d 604, 897 N.E.2d 1088;People v. Fai Cheung, 247 A.D.2d 405, 405, 667 N.Y.S.2d 929,lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 851, 677 N.Y.S.2d 82, 699 N.E.2d 442).
It is likewise well settled that a trial court “lack[s] the authority to consider facts not appearing on the record in determining [a] defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to set aside the verdict on the ground, inter alia, of ineffective assistance of counsel” ( People v. Green, 92 A.D.3d 894, 896, 939 N.Y.S.2d 487,lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 961, 950 N.Y.S.2d 113, 973 N.E.2d 211;see People v. Hardy, 49 A.D.3d 1232, 1233, 856 N.Y.S.2d 324,affd.13 N.Y.3d 805, 890 N.Y.S.2d 372, 918 N.E.2d 884;People v. Griffin, 48 A.D.3d 1233, 1236, 851 N.Y.S.2d 808,lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 840, 859 N.Y.S.2d 399, 889 N.E.2d 86). Thus, “to the extent that [a defendant's motion] concerns matters outside the record on appeal, the proper procedural vehicle is a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10” ( Hardy, 49 A.D.3d at 1233, 856 N.Y.S.2d 324;see Griffin, 48 A.D.3d at 1236, 851 N.Y.S.2d 808). Here, because defendant's motion “did not raise a ‘ground appearing in the record’ (CPL 330.30[1] ),” reversal on direct appeal would not have been mandated as a matter of law, and the court lacked the authority to grant the motion ( Hardy, 49 A.D.3d at 1233, 856 N.Y.S.2d 324;see Griffin, 48 A.D.3d at 1236, 851 N.Y.S.2d 808).
Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the prosecutor raised the above-mentioned statutory limitations in opposition to the motion. Even assuming, arguendo, that he did not raise them, we conclude that the prosecutor's failure to assert them in opposition to the motion could not have bestowed upon the court the authority to exceed the parameters of CPL 330.30(1). Defendant further contends that, because the court did not set forth a legal reason for denying that part of his motion to set aside the verdict, we cannot address the statutory limitations without violating People v. Concepcion, 17 N.Y.3d 192, 194–195, 929 N.Y.S.2d 541, 953 N.E.2d 779. We reject that contention. The decision of the Court of Appeals in Concepcion does not limit our authority to conclude that a motion was properly denied where, as here, there was no legal basis upon which the court could have granted the motion.
With respect to defendant's remaining contentions, we conclude that, upon viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, [we] must give ‘[g]reat deference ... [to the] fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ ” ( People v. Harris, 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745,lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679, quoting Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). It was for the jury to determine whether to credit the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, and we see no reason to disturb the jury's credibility determination ( see id.).
We further conclude that the court did not err in refusing to suppress defendant's oral and written statements to the police. The police officers responded to a dispatch call concerning a motor vehicle accident. Upon arriving at the scene, a group of bystanders informed the officers that a nearby slow-moving vehicle, in which defendant was the sole occupant, had run over the victim. After one officer activated the lights and siren of his police vehicle, defendant's vehicle stopped. The officers approached the vehicle, whereupon they observed an open beer can in a cup holder. One officer asked defendant, “what happened,” and he responded that he “ran that guy over.” We agree with the court that, “[a]lthough defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution during the period of this questioning ..., he was not, as a matter of law, in custody at th[at] time for purposes of the need to give Miranda warnings. When a seizure of a person remains at the stop and frisk inquiry level and does not constitute a restraint on his or her freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest, Miranda warnings need not be given prior to questioning” ( People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 893–894, 524 N.Y.S.2d 378, 519 N.E.2d 289;see People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29, 34, 390 N.Y.S.2d 843, 359 N.E.2d 353). It is well established that “ ‘threshold crime scene inquiries' designed to clarify the situation and questions that are purely investigatory in nature do not need to be preceded by Miranda warnings” ( People v. Mayerhofer, 283 A.D.2d 672, 674, 725 N.Y.S.2d 696;see People v. Coffey, 107 A.D.3d 1047, 1050, 966 N.Y.S.2d 277,lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1041, 972 N.Y.S.2d 538, 995 N.E.2d 854;People v. DeBlase, 142 A.D.2d 926, 927, 530 N.Y.S.2d 352;People v. La Joy, 109 A.D.2d 916, 918, 486 N.Y.S.2d 385). Our “determination disposes of defendant's further [contention] that his [written] statement to the [officer] was tainted by the alleged illegality of the [officer's] initial questioning” ( Coffey, 107 A.D.3d at 1050, 966 N.Y.S.2d 277;see People v. Hennigan, 135 A.D.2d 1082, 1083, 523 N.Y.S.2d 302).
Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe in view of defendant's prior criminal record and his lack of remorse.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.