People v. Coffie
Docket 157 KA 23-00570
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02525
- Docket
- 157 KA 23-00570
Appeal from a judgment of conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree following a jury trial in Cattaraugus County Court.
Summary
The Appellate Division affirmed defendant Theodore E. Coffie’s conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment arising from nine shots fired toward a street outside a house. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging sentence and rejected Coffie’s claims that the evidence was insufficient, that grand jury and jury-note procedures were flawed, that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that trial counsel was ineffective. The court found the girlfriend’s identification, the parked vehicle with a passenger during the shooting, and a recovered bullet near the scene provided a valid basis for the jury’s verdict and that any preserved errors did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove defendant was the shooter and that the shooting created a grave risk of death to a bystander.
- Whether the trial court complied with required procedures for disclosure of jury notes.
- Whether prosecutorial misconduct during summation deprived defendant of a fair trial.
- Whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the standard of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and found the girlfriend’s testimony identifying defendant, the presence of a passenger in the vehicle parked at the scene, and a bullet recovered across the street provided permissible inferences that defendant fired the shots and acted with reckless indifference. The court held that procedural objections were unpreserved because defendant failed to raise them at trial or renew motions, and any improper prosecutorial remarks were not so pervasive as to deny a fair trial. On ineffective assistance, the court found defense counsel’s performance was meaningful under governing standards.
Authorities Cited
- People v Contes60 NY2d 620 (1983)
- People v Bleakley69 NY2d 490 (1987)
- People v Danielson9 NY3d 342 (2007)
Parties
- Appellant
- Theodore E. Coffie
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Attorney
- Allison V. McMahon (Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, for defendant-appellant)
- Attorney
- Lori Pettit Rieman (District Attorney, for respondent)
- Judge
- Ronald D. Ploetz
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-02-14
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal
If defendant wishes to continue, consult counsel about applying for leave to the New York Court of Appeals and the applicable filing deadlines and standards for leave.
- 2
Review post-conviction options
Evaluate potential collateral remedies such as a motion to vacate or a habeas petition if there are preserved constitutional claims not previously raised.
- 3
Obtain and review trial record
Defense counsel should obtain the full trial transcript and appellate record to identify any preserved issues or new grounds for post-conviction relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment and dismissed the appeal as to the sentence.
- Why did the court say the evidence was enough?
- Because a witness identified defendant as the shooter, a vehicle with a passenger was at the scene when shots were fired, and a bullet was found across the street, permitting reasonable inferences that defendant fired recklessly.
- Can defendant seek further review?
- The decision does not state whether leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was sought; a defendant may seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but timelines and standards apply.
- Does this mean the sentence cannot be changed?
- The court dismissed the sentence portion of the appeal and noted the sentence issue is moot because defendant has completed serving the sentence; the court would not reduce it in the interest of justice even if it were not moot.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Coffie - 2026 NY Slip Op 02525 People v Coffie 2026 NY Slip Op 02525 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v THEODORE E. COFFIE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 157 KA 23-00570 Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ. THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALLISON V. MCMAHON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FOR RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Ronald D. Ploetz, J.), rendered February 14, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of reckless endangerment in the first degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) stemming from an incident where nine gun shots were fired outside a house toward the street. Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that he was the shooter or that anyone was in or near the line of fire. Defendant's contention is not preserved for our review, both because his trial order of dismissal motion did not raise the specific grounds he advances on appeal and because he did not renew the motion after presenting evidence ( see generally People v Hines , 97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]; People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The testimony of defendant's girlfriend established defendant's identity as the shooter, and we reject defendant's contention that her testimony was " 'so unworthy of belief as to be incredible as a matter of law' " ( People v Woods , 26 AD3d 818, 819 [4th Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 765 [2006]; see People v Toran , 229 AD3d 1228, 1229 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 1022 [2024]). The evidence also established that the vehicle defendant arrived in when he went to the house was parked in the street, with a passenger still inside the vehicle, when shots were fired near the vehicle. In addition, a bullet was recovered from a porch directly across the street from the shooting, and the jury could rationally infer that the bullet came from the gun used by defendant in the shooting. Under these circumstances, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to enable the jury to find that defendant acted recklessly under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life and created a grave risk of death to a bystander ( see People v Collins , 70 AD3d 1366, 1367 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 839 [2010]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495). Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jury "failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" ( id. ). Defendant's contention that he was denied his right to be convicted only on charges determined by a grand jury is not preserved for our review ( see People v Hursh , 191 AD3d 1453, 1454 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 957 [2021]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant further contends that County Court failed to comply with the procedure for disclosure of jury notes to counsel set forth in People v O ' Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]). County Court read the jury note at issue into the record in open court in the presence of defendant, defense counsel, and the jury, and thus no mode of proceedings error occurred and defendant was required to object in order to preserve his present contention for review ( see People v Nealon , 26 NY3d 152, 160-161 [2015]; People v Kellam , 237 AD3d 1518, 1519 [4th Dept 2025]; People v Wilson , 158 AD3d 1204, 1204-1205 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1089 [2018]), which he failed to do. We decline to exercise our power to review defendant's contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant further failed to preserve for our review his contention that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived him of a fair trial ( see People v Williams , 233 AD3d 1463, 1465 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 1012 [2025]). In any event, to the extent that the prosecutor's remarks were improper, they were "not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial" ( People v Elmore , 175 AD3d 1003, 1005 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1158 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Hills , 234 AD3d 1311, 1314 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 43 NY3d 963 [2025]). We reject defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]). We conclude that the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that defendant received meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; Baldi , 54 NY2d at 147). Inasmuch as defendant has completed serving the sentence imposed, his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe has been rendered moot ( see People v Castellano , 232 AD3d 1305, 1305-1306 [4th Dept 2024]; People v Ismael , 210 AD3d 1528, 1529-1530 [4th Dept 2022]; People v Boley , 126 AD3d 1389, 1390 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1159 [2015]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention is not moot, we would decline to reduce the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see Ismael , 210 AD3d at 1530). Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn