People v. Barnett

• Citation: 125 A.D.3d 878,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01464,3 N.Y.S.3d 128
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jerome BARNETT, appellant.
• Decision Date: 18 February 2015
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

125 A.D.3d 878

3 N.Y.S.3d 128

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 01464

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Jerome BARNETT, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 18, 2015

Affirmed. Rachel J. Filasto, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu and Laurie G. Sapakoff of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered January 9, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, petit larceny, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492–493, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 739 N.E.2d 290; People v. Santos, 86 N.Y.2d 869, 871, 635 N.Y.S.2d 168, 658 N.E.2d 1041; People v. Sudol, 89 A.D.3d 499, 500, 932 N.Y.S.2d 49; People v. Cortes, 44 A.D.3d 1068, 844 N.Y.S.2d 403). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to those crimes. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the aforementioned crimes was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902). Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the verdict finding him guilty of burglary in the third degree and not guilty of the petit larceny count with respect to the incident underlying the burglary count was not repugnant ( see generally People v. Trappier, 87 N.Y.2d 55, 637 N.Y.S.2d 352, 660 N.E.2d 1131).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to sever certain counts of the indictment from others. “Separate offenses are joinable in a single indictment and may be tried together when the offenses ... are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law” ( People v. Richardson, 235 A.D.2d 502, 503, 653 N.Y.S.2d 602; see People v. Jenkins, 50 N.Y.2d 981, 431 N.Y.S.2d 471, 409 N.E.2d 944; People v. Allah, 283 A.D.2d 436, 725 N.Y.S.2d 659). The defendant failed to show that he would be unduly prejudiced by the joint trial of those charges, and failed to demonstrate that he had both a strong need to refrain from testifying concerning the charges arising from some incidents, and important testimony...