People v. Delgado

• Decision Date: 26 December 2012
• Citation: 956 N.Y.S.2d 579,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09080,101 A.D.3d 1144
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Luis DELGADO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 1144
956 N.Y.S.2d 579
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09080

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Luis DELGADO, appellant.

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

Dec. 26, 2012.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward Bannan of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[101 A.D.3d 1145]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered February 8, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of burglary in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2];

[956 N.Y.S.2d 580]

People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). 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. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder's opportunity 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,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;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 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 contention, the County Court properly admitted evidence of his prior burglary convictions, without the underlying facts of those convictions, since that evidence was relevant to the issue of his intent, and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect ( see People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286;People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808;People v. Alke, 90 A.D.3d 943, 944, 935 N.Y.S.2d 96).

However,...