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.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Maxine Norfleet

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 14, 2012

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
MAXINE NORFLEET, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People v Norfleet

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 February 14, 2012

Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered July 14, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to concurrent terms of 9 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the physical injury element of one of her robbery convictions (see Penal Law § 160.10[2][a]). That claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its assessment of the victim's characterization of her injuries (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

The evidence established that defendant and her accomplices assaulted the victim for several minutes in order to take her jewelry. The victim testified that she sustained scrapes, scratches, and bruises, causing significant pain. In addition, the victim sought medical treatment and received prescription-strength pain medication. Accordingly, the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence (see Penal Law § 10.00[9]; People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]).

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 14, 2012

CLERK

20120214

© 1992-2012 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.