People v. Ambroise

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Jobloveand Amy Appelbaumof counsel; Matthis Chiroux on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered February 25, 2013, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.15[2]; People v. Hawkins,11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Gray,86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Martinez,116 A.D.3d 983, 983 N.Y.S.2d 839; People v. Kearney,25 A.D.3d 622, 806 N.Y.S.2d 885; People v. Butler,265 A.D.2d 487, 697 N.Y.S.2d 633). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes,60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt (see

People v. Callicut,101 A.D.3d 1256, 1258, 956 N.Y.S.2d 607; People v. Bryant,36 A.D.3d 517, 828 N.Y.S.2d 360; People v. Lewis,277 A.D.2d 603, 714 N.Y.S.2d 830; People v. Holmes,260 A.D.2d 942, 943, 690 N.Y.S.2d 292). Contrary to the defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he intended to kill the victim, his intent may be inferred from his conduct and the surrounding circumstances (see People v. Bracey,41 N.Y.2d 296, 301, 392 N.Y.S.2d 412, 360 N.E.2d 1094; People v. Mutterperl,97 A.D.3d 699, 948 N.Y.S.2d 383; People v. Holmes,260 A.D.2d at 943, 690 N.Y.S.2d 292). Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero,7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MILLERand HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.