People v Blunt

People v Blunt 2017 NY Slip Op 03360 Decided on April 28, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 April 28, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
496 KA 15-01590

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

DURELL BLUNT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DONALD G. O'GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (ERIC R. SCHIENER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M. Mohun, J.), rendered September 16, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

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 promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see People v Mansilla, 143 AD3d 1263, 1263; People v Davey, 134 AD3d 1448, 1449). Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), the evidence provided a "valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495), i.e., that defendant possessed a flat, sharpened piece of metal that he wielded during a prison fight. Moreover, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Hood, 145 AD3d 1565, 1565-1566; Mansilla, 143 AD3d at 1263; see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). We have considered defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: April 28, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court