People v. Degnan

• Decision Date: 17 January 2019
• Docket Number: 108457
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael J. DEGNAN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

168 A.D.3d 1224

91 N.Y.S.3d 804

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Michael J. DEGNAN, Appellant.

108457

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

Calendar Date: December 12, 2018

Decided and Entered: January 17, 2019

William T. Morrison, Albany, for appellant.

Michael D. Ferrarese, Acting District Attorney, Norwich (Karen Fisher McGee, New York Prosecutors Training Institute, Inc., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Devine and Rumsey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.In September 2013, defendant was charged with various crimes stemming from allegations that he sexually assaulted a 14–year–old girl and thereafter committed a series of offenses in an effort to evade apprehension. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, endangering the welfare of a child and three counts of petit larceny.¹ Defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to a prison term of 25 years to life for his burglary conviction and concurrent one-year jail terms for each of his remaining misdemeanor convictions. Defendant now appeals.

We agree with defendant, and the People concede, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction for burglary in the second degree. As relevant here, that crime requires proof that defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein (see Penal Law § 140.25[2] ). Additionally, at the time of the unlawful entry, defendant must have harbored a contemporaneous criminal intent other than criminal trespass (see People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 363, 547 N.Y.S.2d 620, 546 N.E.2d 913 [1999] ; People v. Simmons, 111 A.D.3d 975, 979, 974 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1203, 986 N.Y.S.2d 423, 9 N.E.3d 918 [2014] ; People v. Douglas, 24 A.D.3d 1019, 1020, 806 N.Y.S.2d 764 [2005] ). The People argued at trial that, indicative of a consciousness of guilt relating to the sex offense charges, defendant unlawfully entered the dwelling to evade arrest and that sometime thereafter he formed an intent to steal several articles of clothing. Given this theory, the People failed to present any evidence that could provide a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational juror could have concluded that, at the time of entry, defendant had a larcenous intent (see People v. Beauvais, 105 A.D.3d 1081, 1084, 962 N.Y.S.2d 764 [2013] ; People v. Rumley, 102 A.D.3d 894, 895, 958 N.Y.S.2d 200 [2013] ; Matter of William A., 4 A.D.3d 647, 648–649, 772 N.Y.S.2d 130 [2004] ). Absent legally sufficient proof of the intent element, the conviction for burglary in the second degree cannot stand.

However, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the lesser included offense of criminal trespass in the second degree, which, as relevant here, requires proof that defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered a dwelling (see Penal Law § 140.15[1] ). The trial evidence established that, without permission, defendant entered a fully furnished residence with working utilities that, although temporarily unoccupied at the time of defendant's entry, was used by the owner – or authorized guests – for overnight lodging, particularly during the warmer months. Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, such evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered a dwelling, so as to satisfy the elements of criminal trespass in the second degree (see generally People v. Quattlebaum, 91 N.Y.2d 744, 747–748, 675 N.Y.S.2d 585, 698 N.E.2d 421 [1998] ; cf. People v. Henry, 64 A.D.3d 804, 805, 881 N.Y.S.2d 701 [2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 860, 891 N.Y.S.2d 694, 920 N.E.2d 99 [2009] ; People v. Thomas, 33 A.D.3d 1056, 1056–1057, 822 N.Y.S.2d 803 [2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 850, 830 N.Y.S.2d 709, 862 N.E.2d 801 [2007] ). Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under CPL 470.15(2)(a), we reduce defendant's conviction for burglary in the second degree to criminal trespass in the second degree (see People v. Beauvais, 105 A.D.3d at 1084, 962 N.Y.S.2d 764 ; People v. Rumley, 102 A.D.3d 894 at 895, 958 N.Y.S.2d 200 ; People v. Green, 24 A.D.3d 16, 20, 803 N.Y.S.2d 225 [2005] ).²

In light of our...