People v Jarvis

People v Jarvis 2012 NY Slip Op 08332 Decided on December 5, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 5, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2011-04164
(Ind. No. 2739/10)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

David Jarvis, appellant.




Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert
A. Schwartz and Ames C. Grawert
of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered April 15, 2011, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant manifested the requisite criminal intent (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301; People v Mendez, 34 AD3d 697, 698; People v Coulter, 240 AD2d 756). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645). Any discrepancies between the complainant's prior statements to a police officer, the complainant's grand jury testimony, and the complainant's trial testimony "were not of such magnitude as to render the complainant's testimony incredible or unreliable" (People v Scipio, 61 AD3d 899, 899). Moreover, the discrepancies were insufficient to render the complainant's testimony perjurious (see Penal Law §§ 210.05, 210.10, 210.15; People v Scipio, 61 AD3d at 899; People v Hansen, 290 AD2d 47, 51-52; People v Bishop, 206 AD2d 884, 885; People v Kitchen, 162 AD2d 178, 179).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino [*2]

Clerk of the Court