Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Jarocha

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


October 2, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
HENRY J. JAROCHA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), rendered October 19, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of felony driving while intoxicated (two counts) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND PINE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of one count of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3]) and two counts of felony driving while intoxicated (§ 1192 [2], [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (ii)]). We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Contrary to defendant's contention, the People presented the order of suspension and revocation with defendant's signature and thus established that defendant knew or had reason to know that his license had been revoked (see People v Crandall, 199 AD2d 867, 869, lv denied 83 NY2d 803). Also, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the two counts of felony driving while intoxicated as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict with respect to those counts is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).

Finally, we conclude that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for substitution of counsel on the day on which jury selection was scheduled to begin (see People v Cunningham, 12 AD3d 1131, 1132, lv denied 4 NY3d 829, 5 NY3d 761; People v Gloster, 175 AD2d 258, 259, lv denied 78 NY2d 1011; People v Terry, 115 AD2d 130, lv denied 67 NY2d 890).

20091002

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.