Opinion
1131 KA 17–01993
01-31-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jashua WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN N. MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN N. MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25 [1] ), endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10[1] ), and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03[1][b]; [3] ). We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his liability as an accessory with respect to those charges. "Accessorial liability requires only that defendant, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime[s], intentionally aid another in the conduct constituting the offense[s]" ( People v. Pizarro, 151 A.D.3d 1678, 1681, 57 N.Y.S.3d 283 (4th Dept. 2017), lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1132, 64 N.Y.S.3d 682, 86 N.E.3d 574 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see § 20.00). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Fox, 124 A.D.3d 1252, 1253, 999 N.Y.S.2d 293 (4th Dept. 2015) ), the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that defendant and the man alleged by defendant to have shot the victim shared "a common purpose and a collective objective" (see People v. Cabey, 85 N.Y.2d 417, 422, 626 N.Y.S.2d 20, 649 N.E.2d 1164 [1995] ), and that defendant "shared in the intention of" the shooter ( People v. Morris, 229 A.D.2d 451, 451, 644 N.Y.S.2d 901 (2d Dept. 1996), lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 990, 649 N.Y.S.2d 397, 672 N.E.2d 623 [1996] ).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is 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 [1987] ). Although an acquittal would not have been unreasonable, upon "weigh[ing] conflicting testimony, review[ing] any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence and evaluat[ing] the strength of such conclusions" ( People v. Courteau, 154 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 63 N.Y.S.3d 154 (4th Dept. 2017), lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1104, 77 N.Y.S.3d 3, 101 N.E.3d 389 [2018] ), we conclude that County Court did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see People v. O'Neill, 169 A.D.3d 1515, 1515, 93 N.Y.S.3d 501 (4th Dept. 2019) ; see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the trial testimony tending to establish his guilt was not incredible as a matter of law (see generally People v. Washington, 160 A.D.3d 1451, 1452, 72 N.Y.S.3d 876 (4th Dept. 2018) ; People v. Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 A.D.3d 1658, 1659–1660, 912 N.Y.S.2d 825 (4th Dept. 2010) ), and any inconsistencies in that testimony merely presented issues of credibility for the factfinder to resolve (see generally People v. Withrow, 170 A.D.3d 1578, 1579, 95 N.Y.S.3d 696 (4th Dept. 2019), lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 940, 109 N.Y.S.3d 740, 133 N.E.3d 444 [2019], reconsideration denied 34 N.Y.3d 1020, 114 N.Y.S.3d 745, 138 N.E.3d 474 [2019] ; People v. Graves, 163 A.D.3d 16, 23, 78 N.Y.S.3d 613 (4th Dept. 2018) ).
We also reject defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to adduce evidence at trial that one of the People's witnesses had received a specific promise of consideration in exchange for that witness' truthful testimony. At trial, however, that witness testified that he hoped his cooperation would be considered at his upcoming sentencing on an unrelated charge, and that no specific promise had been made to him. The record on appeal contains no evidence of any agreement beyond the general hope for leniency described by the witness at trial, and thus defendant has failed to "demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for" defense counsel's failure to adduce additional proof of a specific agreement ( People v. Kurkowski, 117 A.D.3d 1442, 1443, 984 N.Y.S.2d 761 (4th Dept. 2014) [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.