People v. Barzee

• Decision Date: 07 January 2021
• Docket Number: 110076
• Citation: 190 A.D.3d 1016,138 N.Y.S.3d 718
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Saio BARZEE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

190 A.D.3d 1016

138 N.Y.S.3d 718

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Saio BARZEE, Appellant.

110076

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

Calendar Date: November 23, 2020

Decided and Entered: January 7, 2021

Brian M. Quinn, Albany, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Rebecca L. Fox of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J, Egan Jr., Mulvey and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Colangelo, J.

Defendant, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility, was charged by indictment with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The charges stemmed from allegations that, during a random pat frisk of defendant, a plexiglass shank fell out of his left pant leg. At the conclusion of a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged. Defendant was ultimately sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 3 to 6 years for each conviction, to be served consecutively to his current term of incarceration. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Initially, defendant contends that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weight of the evidence. "Inasmuch as [defendant's] motion for a trial order of dismissal was not directed at the specific arguments that he raises on appeal, defendant's legal insufficiency claim is unpreserved" ( People v. Bombard, 187 A.D.3d 1417, 1417, 133 N.Y.S.3d 669 [2020] [citations omitted]; see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19–20, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; People v. Meadows, 183 A.D.3d 1016, 1016–1017, 123 N.Y.S.3d 753 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1047, 127 N.Y.S.3d 825, 151 N.E.3d 506 [2020] ; People v. Shackelton, 177 A.D.3d 1163, 1165, 115 N.Y.S.3d 488 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1162, 120 N.Y.S.3d 270, 142 N.E.3d 1172 [2020] ; People v. Youngs, 175 A.D.3d 1604, 1606, 110 N.Y.S.3d 73 [2019] ). "Nevertheless, in reviewing defendant's challenge to the weight of the evidence, we necessarily determine whether all of the elements of the charged crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt" ( People v. Bombard, 187 A.D.3d at 1417–1418, 133 N.Y.S.3d 669 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v. Brinkley, 174 A.D.3d 1159, 1160, 106 N.Y.S.3d 210 [2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 979, 113 N.Y.S.3d 646, 137 N.E.3d 16 [2019] ). "In conducting a weight of the evidence review, we must view the evidence in a neutral light and determine first whether a different verdict would have been unreasonable and, if not, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" ( People v. Bombard, 187 A.D.3d at 1418, 133 N.Y.S.3d 669 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ; People v. Brinkley, 174 A.D.3d at 1160, 106 N.Y.S.3d 210 ).

As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when ... [s]uch person commits the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree ... and has been previously convicted of any crime" ( Penal Law § 265.02[1] ).¹ "A person is guilty of promoting prison contraband in the first degree when[,] ... [b]eing a person confined in a detention facility, he [or she] knowingly and unlawfully makes, obtains or possesses any dangerous contraband" ( Penal Law § 205.25[2] ). "Contraband" is defined as "any article or thing which a person in a detention facility is prohibited from obtaining or possessing by statute, rule, regulation or order" ( Penal Law § 205.00[3] ), whereas "[d]angerous contraband" is defined as "contraband which is capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein" ( Penal Law § 205.00[4] ; see People v. Andrade, 172 A.D.3d 1547, 1549, 100 N.Y.S.3d 408 [2019], lvs denied 34 N.Y.3d 928, 937, 109 N.Y.S.3d 713, 133 N.E.3d 415 [2019] ).

At trial, Matthew Moak, a correction officer, testified that a plexiglass shank fell from defendant's left pant leg during a random pat frisk. Andrew Burgess, a correction sergeant, testified that he witnessed the plexiglass shank fall from defendant's left pant leg. Defendant was then escorted by Moak and Burgess to the hospital and searched again. No other contraband was recovered. The plexiglass shank, which had been retrieved and secured by Moak, was photographed in black and white, and, at trial, both the photograph and the plexiglass shank were identified by Moak and Burgess, introduced into evidence and published to the jury without objection. The testimony further established that defendant's identity was ascertained by the state-issued identification card found on his person.

Moak testified that a plexiglass shank such as the one recovered from defendant poses a security risk to individuals inside of the facility and has been used to cause cuttings, stabbings and death. Moreover, according to Moak, the shank poses an additional security risk because it is detectable only by a pat frisk and would not activate a metal detector. Moak testified that he had no contact with defendant before or after the incident. Burgess testified that according to rules and regulations of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, inmates are subject to random pat frisks any time they are in movement, and no suspicion is required before a pat frisk can be conducted. Burgess defined contraband as any item that an inmate should not have within his or her possession or in his or her cell at any time, and he explained that dangerous contraband is any object that would readily cause physical harm against another. According to Burgess, while not all contraband is considered dangerous, the plexiglass shank recovered from defendant is dangerous contraband since, as a piece of plexiglass sharpened to a point, it is readily able to cause a puncture wound, laceration or serious injury. Burgess testified that the plexiglass shank possessed by defendant is not permitted in the facility under any circumstances, including for an inmate's own protection. Burgess further testified that the plexiglass shank was likely made by defendant from a commissary mirror in his cell.

Defendant testified in narrative form as to the random pat frisk, asserting, among other things, that the shank was not recovered from him. He testified that he has no reason to carry a weapon because "[his] hands [are] good" and he "box[es] so [he] do[es]n't need ... weapons." Defendant professed his innocence and testified that he declined a plea offer of 1½ to 3 years because he is innocent. Defendant claimed that the photograph of the shank should have been taken with a digital camera to reflect the date it was taken. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that, in May 2018, he was convicted of a felony.

As to the weight of the evidence, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable as the jury could have credited defendant's testimony that he never possessed the shank. However, when we view the foregoing evidence in a neutral light and accord deference to the jury's credibility determinations, we find that the jury's verdict as to both convictions is supported by the weight of the evidence (see People v. Andrade, 172 A.D.3d at 1551, 100 N.Y.S.3d 408 ; People v. Persen, 185 A.D.3d 1288, 1291–1292, 128 N.Y.S.3d 340 [2020] ; People v. Robinson, 183 A.D.3d 1118, 1122, 124 N.Y.S.3d 468 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1069, 129 N.Y.S.3d 378, 152 N.E.3d 1180 [2020] ). Moreover, contrary to defendant's contention regarding his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, the testimony of Moak and Burgess established defendant's possession of the shank and that it was made primarily for use as a weapon. Thus, once the jury credited the testimony establishing these elements of this crime, "the jury was entitled to infer from such possession that defendant had intended to use the [shank] unlawfully" ( People v. Pendelton, 90 A.D.3d 1234, 1235, 934 N.Y.S.2d 611 [2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 996, 945 N.Y.S.2d 651, 968 N.E.2d 1007 [2012] ; see Penal Law § 265.15[4] ; People v. Solomon, 78 A.D.3d 1426, 1428, 911 N.Y.S.2d 514 [2010], lvs denied 16 N.Y.3d 899, 900, 926 N.Y.S.2d 35, 949 N.E.2d 983 [2011] ).

We are similarly unpersuaded by defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial based upon County Court's denial of his motion to subpoena certain defense witnesses or to order that they be produced at trial. "Although a defendant has a fundamental right to call witnesses for his [or her] own defense, the right to an adjournment for any purpose[ ] rests within the sound discretion of the trial court" ( People v. Benson, 260 A.D.2d 864, 865, 690 N.Y.S.2d 143 [1999] [citations omitted], lvs denied 93 N.Y.2d 966, 977, 695 N.Y.S.2d 52, 63, 716 N.E.2d 1097, 1108 [1999]; see People v. Singleton, 41 N.Y.2d 402, 405, 393 N.Y.S.2d 353, 361 N.E.2d 1003 [1977] ). "When a defendant seeks an adjournment so that a potential witness can be produced, it is incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate, among other things, that the witness would furnish testimony that is both material and favorable to the defense" ( People v. Horton, 181 A.D.3d 986, 994, 119 N.Y.S.3d 296 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 1045, 127 N.Y.S.3d 845, 151 N.E.3d 527 [2020] ). Here, defendant did not establish that additional testimony from Moak and Burgess, as well as the proposed testimony from a correction captain who was neither present nor prepared to testify, would be material or relevant to his defense, and the court therefore acted within its discretion in denying defendant's request for an adjournment (see People v. Diggins, 11 N.Y.3d 518, 524, 872 N.Y.S.2d 408, 900 N.E.2d 959 [2008] ; People v. Horton, 181 A.D.3d...