PEOPLE v. STANTON (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered March 13, 2019, as amended May 13, 2019, convicting defendant, after a bench trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a prison term of twelve years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007];  see also People v. Baque, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05244 [2024]).  The evidence supported the conclusion that the victim sustained substantial pain as the result of banging his head hard against a door, being punched in the face, and being punched in the leg more than five times to overcome his resistance to having his money stolen.  Both the Court of Appeals and this Court have recently found that the evidence of substantial pain was legally sufficient in cases that involved less pain than the victim suffered here (see People v. Wheeler, 40 N.Y.3d 925, 926, 192 N.Y.S.3d 42, 213 N.E.3d 102 [2023];  People v. Kearse, 214 A.D.3d 438, 438, 184 N.Y.S.3d 753 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 929, 192 N.Y.S.3d 516, 213 N.E.3d 658 [2023]).

The court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted cross-examination regarding three of defendant's six felony convictions, without reference to the underlying facts of the crimes, was not an abuse of discretion (see People v. Hayes, 97 N.Y.2d 203, 207, 738 N.Y.S.2d 663, 764 N.E.2d 963 [2002]).

Defendant's claim based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) that the persistent violent felony offender statute is unconstitutional because it “does not permit jury fact-finding on issues that increase the penalty beyond the prescribed maximum, specifically facts related to tolling,” is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.  The issue was also affirmatively waived by counsel, who knowingly relinquished the argument (see People v. Jurgins, 26 N.Y.3d 607, 611, 26 N.Y.S.3d 495, 46 N.E.3d 1048 [2015]).