Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. CLAYTON H. STEVENS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
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 jury verdict of, inter alia, felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) (Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192[3]; 1193[1][c][ii] ), failure to wear a seat belt (§ 1229–c [3] ), and consumption of alcoholic beverages or possession of an open container containing alcoholic beverages in a motor vehicle (§ 1227[1] ). Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of those crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Although a different result would not have been unreasonable,
“ ‘[t]he jury was entitled to resolve issues of credibility in favor of the People ․, and it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded’ “ (People v. Caver, 56 AD3d 1204, 1204, lv denied 12 NY3d 781).
We reject defendant's further contention that County Court failed to fashion an appropriate Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 374). We conclude that the court's Sandoval compromise, in which it limited questioning on defendant's prior convictions for DWI-related offenses to whether defendant had been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor on the appropriate date, “reflects a proper exercise of the court's discretion” (People v. Thomas, 305 A.D.2d 1099, 1099, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 600). The court did not abuse its discretion in further permitting specific questioning as to defendant's other convictions, even though they were remote in time (see generally People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 458–459).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge that he was punished for exercising his right to a trial (see People v. Carey, 92 AD3d 1224, 1225, lv denied 18 NY3d 992; People v. Shay, 85 AD3d 1708, 1709, lv denied 17 NY3d 822). In any event, we conclude that the contention is without merit (see People v. Coapman, 90 AD3d 1681, 1684, lv denied 18 NY3d 956; People v. Dorn, 71 AD3d 1523, 1524). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 09–02539
Decided: September 27, 2013
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)