People v Stafford (Wilbert)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Stafford (Wilbert) 2017 NY Slip Op 50381(U) Decided on March 29, 2017 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 29, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P, Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
14-360

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Wilbert Stafford, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 1, 2013, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 1, 2013, affirmed.

Defendant's present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for resisting arrest (see Penal Law § 205.30) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The jury could rationally infer that defendant knew he was being arrested when two police officers told him not to move and attempted to handcuff him, and that defendant's flailing and physical struggle with the officers, resulting in all three falling down in the mud, were deliberate acts to resist arrest (see People v Badia, 46 AD3d 312 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 761 [2008]; People v Karim, 176 AD2d 670 [1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 859 [1992]; People v Cvetkovski, 49 Misc 3d 127[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51379[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Nor was the conviction against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakely, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: March 29, 2017



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.