Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Dena E. Douglas, J.), rendered August 5, 2010.
People v Stevens (Hassan)
Appellate Term, Second 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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 25, 2013
PRESENT: RIOS, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
The judgment convicted defendant, after a non-jury trial, of two counts of attempted assault in the third degree and of public consumption of alcohol.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for resentencing.
After a non-jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00 ) and of public consumption of alcohol (Administrative Code of the City of New York § 10-125 [b]).
At the trial, the arresting police officer testified that he had observed defendant standing with a group of men on a sidewalk, each holding and drinking from a plastic cup. Upon being approached by the arresting officer, defendant and all of the other men present dropped their plastic cups to the ground. Defendant then began to walk away. The arresting officer picked up the plastic cups and observed that they smelled of beer. Following defendant's arrest and removal to a holding cell at the police precinct, defendant was ordered to remove his belt and shoelaces. When defendant refused to comply, the arresting officer removed defendant's belt, causing his pants to fall to his ankles. When the arresting officer bent down to pick up defendant's pants, defendant made a fist and struck the arresting officer and another officer in the face.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of public consumption of alcohol and two counts of attempted assault in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. With respect to defendant's claim that the People failed to prove that he had the requisite intent to commit either count of attempted assault in the third degree, we note that intent can be inferred from the act itself (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 ) and that a "person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act" (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 474 ). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 ; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 ), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 ; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 ).
CPL 380.20 requires that where convictions are entered on multiple charges, the court must pronounce sentence upon each conviction (see People v Sturgis, 69 NY2d 816, 817 ; People v Sacco, 294 AD2d 452, 453 ; People v Caravousanos, 2 Misc 3d 7 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2003]). Since the Criminal Court failed to impose a sentence on each conviction, the judgment of conviction is modified by vacating the sentence imposed and the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for resentencing (People v Slakas, 22 Misc 3d 129[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50057[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).
The remaining issues raised by defendant on appeal are ...