PEOPLE v. COLLINS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charleston COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: September 28, 2007

PRESENT:  GORSKI, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PINE, JJ. Frank H. HiscockLegal Aid Society, Syracuse (Philip Rothschild Of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (Audra Albright Of Counsel), for Respondent.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20[1] ).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bisono, 37 A.D.3d 844, 832 N.Y.S.2d 220, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 981, 838 N.Y.S.2d 485, 869 N.E.2d 661;  People v. Garcia, 308 A.D.2d 389, 764 N.Y.S.2d 623, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 572, 775 N.Y.S.2d 789, 807 N.E.2d 902).   The intent of defendant to cause serious physical injury may be inferred from his conduct in stabbing the victim (see People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 682, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845;  People v. Tedesco, 30 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 816 N.Y.S.2d 269, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 818, 822 N.Y.S.2d 493, 855 N.E.2d 809;  People v. Shero, 283 A.D.2d 953, 725 N.Y.S.2d 782, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 868, 730 N.Y.S.2d 42, 754 N.E.2d 1125).   Although defendant contends that a prosecution witness was not credible, it was for the jury to resolve issues of credibility, and its determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (see Bisono, 37 A.D.3d at 844-845, 832 N.Y.S.2d 220;  People v. Williams, 284 A.D.2d 957, 726 N.Y.S.2d 321, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 943, 733 N.Y.S.2d 383, 759 N.E.2d 382).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, County Court properly refused to suppress his statement to the police.   The court's assessment of the credibility of the police officer who testified at the suppression hearing is entitled to deference (see People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380), and the record supports the court's determination that defendant voluntarily made the statement after waiving his Miranda rights (see People v. Gainey, 34 A.D.3d 1250, 823 N.Y.S.2d 711, lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 880, 885, 832 N.Y.S.2d 492, 497, 864 N.E.2d 622, 627).   We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: