People v. Craft

• Decision Date: 13 March 2013
• Citation: 961 N.Y.S.2d 255,104 A.D.3d 786,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01567
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher CRAFT, Sr., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

104 A.D.3d 786

961 N.Y.S.2d 255

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 01567

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Christopher CRAFT, Sr., appellant.

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

March 13, 2013.

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered December 13, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, criminal trespass in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and menacing in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Dolan, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements he made to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in denying, after a Huntley hearing ( see People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 255 N.Y.S.2d 838, 204 N.E.2d 179), that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his videotaped statement to detectives which he made after his arrest is only partially preserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, is without merit. His contention, in effect, that he should have been examined by a psychiatric expert prior to the administration of Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) is unavailing. The record demonstrates that he was lucid and coherent during the interview and gave no indication that he would have been unable to comprehend “the immediate import of [the Miranda ] warnings” ( People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 289, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327). The record establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 prior to making his statement ( see People v. Capela, 97 A.D.3d 760, 761, 948 N.Y.S.2d 423). Furthermore, there is no merit to his contention that his statement should have been suppressed because law enforcement officials failed to electronically record his waiver ( see People v. Esquerdo, 71 A.D.3d 1424, 1426, 897 N.Y.S.2d 565).

In order for a defendant's psychiatric evidence to be admissible in support of an insanity defense pursuant to Penal Law § 40.15, the defense must file and serve a timely, written notice of intent to present such evidence ( seeCPL 250.10[1][a];[2]; People v. Diaz, 15 N.Y.3d 40, 45, 904 N.Y.S.2d 343, 930 N.E.2d 264;People v. Smith, 1 N.Y.3d 610, 612, 776 N.Y.S.2d 198, 808 N.E.2d 333;People v. Almonor, 93 N.Y.2d 571, 578, 693 N.Y.S.2d 861, 715 N.E.2d 1054). Such notice must be served and filed before trial and not more than 30 days after entry of a plea of not guilty to the indictment ( seeCPL 250.10 [2]; People v. White, 75 A.D.3d 109, 123, 901 N.Y.S.2d 346). However, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown, the court may, within its discretion, permit late service and filing of such notice “at any later time prior to the close of the evidence” (CPL 250.10[2]; see People v. Diaz, 15 N.Y.3d at 45, 904 N.Y.S.2d 343, 930 N.E.2d 264;People v. Berk, 88 N.Y.2d 257, 265–266, 644 N.Y.S.2d 658, 667 N.E.2d 308,cert. denied519 U.S. 859, 117 S.Ct. 160, 136 L.Ed.2d 104;People v. White, 75 A.D.3d at 123, 901 N.Y.S.2d 346). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he had a viable insanity defense. Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for leave to serve and file a late notice pursuant to CPL 250.10 of intent to present psychiatric evidence in support of the defense.

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court should have granted his request to charge the jury that a mistaken belief on his part that he was licensed or privileged to enter the school premises where the subject incident occurred negated the element of “knowingly enter [ing] or remain[ing] unlawfully” (Penal Law §§ 140.25, 140.17), which is necessary for a conviction of burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the first degree. Penal Law § 140.00(5) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] person who enters or remains in or about a school building without written permission from someone authorized to issue such permission or without a legitimate reason which includes a relationship involving custody of or responsibility for a pupil or student enrolled in the school or without legitimate business or a purpose relating to the operation of the school does so without license and privilege.” In light of this statutory provision and the factual circumstances of this case, the defendant could not have reasonably believed that he was licensed or privileged to enter the school.

The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in denying his numerous requests for new assigned counsel is not reviewable on direct appeal inasmuch as no such request is apparent on the face of the record ( see People v. Espinal, 72 A.D.3d 701, 701, 897 N.Y.S.2d 644;People v. Perry, 60 A.D.3d 873, 873, 874 N.Y.S.2d 384).

Furthermore, the defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on several instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is not reviewable on direct appeal since the record contains insufficient evidence for this Court to review the defendant's claims in this regard ( seeCPL 440.10 [2][b]; cf. People v. Johnson, 205 A.D.2d 707, 708, 613 N.Y.S.2d 429). These claims may properly be reviewed only in the context of a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, which is designed for the purpose of developing matter dehors the trial record ( see People v. Franklin, 77 A.D.3d 676, 908 N.Y.S.2d 359;People v. Johnson, 64 A.D.3d 792, 882 N.Y.S.2d 706;People v. Ransome, 207 A.D.2d 504, 615 N.Y.S.2d 911).

The defendant also contends that he was deprived...