Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Garret Sloan, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-10-29
Citations: 132 A.D.3d 593
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Garret Sloan, Appellant.
Judges: Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 593–593

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Garret Sloan, Appellant.
[19 NYS3d 508]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), rendered November 12, 2013, as amended December 19, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of stalking in the first and second degrees, criminal contempt in the first degree (three counts), criminal contempt in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we 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, and the mixed verdict does not warrant a different conclusion (see People v Ray am, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]). The physical injury element of first-degree stalking was established by evidence that, when viewed as a whole, supports the conclusion that the victim sustained substantial pain. Among other things, defendant repeatedly punched the victim, causing swelling on the side of her face and other injuries, and she was treated at a hospital (see e.g. People v Stapleton, 33 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 904 [2006]). The jury could have reasonably inferred that there was "more than slight or trivial pain" (People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; see also People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]). The evidence also established the charges that involved display of a dangerous instrument.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.