People v Wells (Terrance)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Wells (Terrance) 2017 NY Slip Op 50796(U) Decided on June 14, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 June 14, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570016/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Terrance Wells, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), rendered October 30, 2015, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Carol R. Sharpe, J.), rendered October 30, 2015, affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his present challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support every element of the harassment count charged, including the requisite element of intent. The trial court, as fact finder, reasonably could conclude that when defendant grabbed the complainant by the neck with his hand and applied pressure so that complainant was unable to breathe, defendant did so with requisite intent to "harass, annoy or alarm" (see Penal Law § 240.26; People v Mack, 76 AD3d 467, 468 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 922 [2010]). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348—349 [2007]). Issues raised by defendant concerning the complainant's credibility, including inconsistencies in her testimony, were properly considered by the trier of fact and there is no basis upon which to disturb its determinations.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: June 14, 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.