212 N.Y.S.3d 818 (Mem)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jose LACEN, Defendant–Appellant.
1850
|
Ind. No. 2332/18
|
Case No. 2019–05511
|
Entered: July 18, 2024
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
Kern, J.P., Friedman, Kapnick, Gesmer, Rodriguez, JJ.
Opinion

*1 Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ralph Fabrizio, J.), rendered December 17, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
 
The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence, and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s conduct of stabbing the victim in the neck with a knife evinced an intent to cause serious physical injury (see People v. Gilford, 65 A.D.3d 840, 841, 884 N.Y.S.2d 731 [1st Dept. 2009], affd 16 N.Y.3d 864, 924 N.Y.S.2d 314, 948 N.E.2d 920 [2011]; Penal Law § 10.00[10]). The jury could have reasonably inferred that defendant intended to permanently deprive the victim, a cab driver, of the cab, as well as the money and phones inside the cab, when defendant drove away in it (see Penal Law § 155.00[3]), even though he abandoned it a short time later (see People v. Peterson, 193 A.D.3d 431, 432, 144 N.Y.S.3d 435 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 959, 147 N.Y.S.3d 512, 170 N.E.3d 386 [2021]).
 
The testimony of the DNA analyst did not violate defendant’s right of confrontation. “The analyst’s testimony demonstrated [his] own ‘independent analysis o[f] the raw data’ to make the comparison, and the analysis was not merely ‘a conduit for the conclusions of others’ ” (People v. Lawrence, 198 A.D.3d 493, 494, 152 N.Y.S.3d 605 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1147, 159 N.Y.S.3d 337, 180 N.E.3d 501 [2021], quoting People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294, 315, 33 N.Y.S.3d 88, 52 N.E.3d 1114 [2016]; see People v. Jordan, 40 N.Y.3d 396, 200 N.Y.S.3d 325, 223 N.E.3d 773 [2023]).
 
Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the court’s interested witness charge, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the charge, which followed the Criminal Jury Instructions, was not constitutionally deficient (see People v. Roby, 217 A.D.3d 505, 507, 191 N.Y.S.3d 26 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 952, 195 N.Y.S.3d 667, 217 N.E.3d 687 [2023]; People v. Blake, 39 A.D.3d 402, 403, 835 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 873, 842 N.Y.S.2d 785, 874 N.E.2d 752 [2007]).
 
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
 
All Citations
212 N.Y.S.3d 818 (Mem), 2024 WL 3446864, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 03868

End of Document
	© 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.