People v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 06 August 2015
• Docket Number: 106501
• Citation: 14 N.Y.S.3d 809,131 A.D.3d 732,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06450
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angel GARCIA, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

131 A.D.3d 732

14 N.Y.S.3d 809

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06450

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent

v.Angel GARCIA, Appellant.

106501

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

Aug. 6, 2015.

Catherine A. Barber, Albany, for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, EGAN JR. and ROSE, JJ.

Opinion

McCARTHY, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered October 18, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant was indicted for the crime of burglary in the second degree in relation to his alleged involvement in the burglary of a residence in Ulster County, during which approximately $56,000 was stolen. Defendant's alleged accomplice, Eric Fehring, implicated him in the burglary during an interview with police after a traffic stop on the day of the incident. Police thereafter verified Fehring's story by visiting the victim's house and conducting a controlled phone call between defendant and Marcella Battista, Fehring's girlfriend at the time. Defendant was then arrested without a warrant five days after the burglary. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged, sentenced to a prison term of 15 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $27,500. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. As is relevant here, the People were required to establish that defendant knowingly entered a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime therein (see Penal Law § 140.25 [2 ] ). According to Fehring, he and defendant discussed burglarizing the victim's home while at Battista's house on the day before the burglary. They then drove to the victim's house the following morning, entered through a broken window and took large amounts of cash and a locked, blue safe containing more cash. Although “[a] defendant may not be convicted solely on the basis of accomplice testimony that lacks the support of ‘corroborative evidence’ ” (People v. Rodriguez, 121 A.D.3d 1435, 1439, 995 N.Y.S.2d 785 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1122, 3 N.Y.S.3d 764, 27 N.E.3d 478 [2015], quoting CPL 60.22[1] ), sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to “harmonize [Fehring]'s narrative so as to provide the necessary corroboration” (People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 155, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Miles, 119 A.D.3d 1077, 1079, 990 N.Y.S.2d 141 [2014], lvs. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1003, 997 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122, 21 N.E.3d 573, 574 [2014] ; People v. Gilbo, 52 A.D.3d 952, 953, 859 N.Y.S.2d 521 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 788, 866 N.Y.S.2d 614, 896 N.E.2d 100 [2008] ). Battista's testimony corroborated Fehring's account of his conversation with defendant on the day before the burglary. Video footage from a gas station shows defendant and Fehring together on the morning of the burglary, and Battista testified that she saw them together that afternoon. Defendant also made admissions regarding the location of the victim's house during a controlled call with Battista, a recording of which was played for the jury. Police found large amounts of cash and various goods on Fehring's person on the day of the burglary. Additionally, several days later, police recovered the blue safe from a lake in the area where Fehring testified that he and defendant had driven and disposed of the safe in a body of water. We therefore find that the People provided “ ‘enough nonaccomplice evidence to assure that the accomplice[ ] ... offered credible probative evidence’ ” (People v. Miles, 119 A.D.3d at 1079, 990 N.Y.S.2d 141, quoting People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 293, 609 N.Y.S.2d 571, 631 N.E.2d 577 [1994] ) that “tend[ed] to connect defendant to the crime charged” (People v. Besser, 96 N.Y.2d 136, 143–144, 726 N.Y.S.2d 48, 749 N.E.2d 727 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Brown, 62 A.D.3d 1089, 1090, 878 N.Y.S.2d 515 [2009], lvs. denied 13 NY3d 742, 886 N.Y.S.2d 96, 914 N.E.2d 1014 [2009] ). Further, the jury was entitled to credit Fehring's testimony that defendant jointly participated in the burglary and, deferring to those credibility determinations, we do not find defendant's conviction to be against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Brown, 62 A.D.3d at 1091, 878 N.Y.S.2d 515 ).

Contrary to defendant's contention on appeal, County Court correctly found that the police had probable cause to arrest him. “Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been ... committed by the person arrested” (People v. Green, 127 A.D.3d 1473, 1473, 8 N.Y.S.3d 687 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord People v. Shulman, 6 N.Y.3d 1, 25, 809 N.Y.S.2d 485, 843 N.E.2d 125 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1043, 126 S.Ct. 1623, 164 L.Ed.2d 339 [2006] ). Here, such probable cause was established by Fehring's implication of defendant in the burglary, his ability to lead law enforcement to the victim's house and the information provided by Fehring concerning the hours leading up to the burglary (see People v. Berzups, 49 N.Y.2d 417, 427, 426 N.Y.S.2d 253, 402 N.E.2d 1155 [1980] ; People v. Green, 127 A.D.3d at 1474 ; People v. Nicholas, 118 A.D.3d 1183, 1187, 988 N.Y.S.2d 277 [2014], lvs. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1121, 3 N.Y.S.3d 762, 27 N.E.3d 476 [2015], 24 N.Y.3d 1122, 3 N.Y.S.3d 763, 27 N.E.3d 477 [2015] ). Further, defendant's subsequent arrest by his parole officer, who was informed of the foregoing information by the investigating officer, was proper under the fellow officer rule (see People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 113–114, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207 [1996] ; see also People v. Porter, 101 A.D.3d 44, 47, 952 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2012], lvs. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1064, 962 N.Y.S.2d 615, 985 N.E.2d 925 [2013], 20 N.Y.3d 1065, 962 N.Y.S.2d 616, 985 N.E.2d 926 [2013] ).

Defendant's argument that County Court was required to instruct the jury that Battista was an accomplice, and that her testimony was thus subject to the same corroboration requirements as that of Fehring, is unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. Given that the only evidence tying Battista to the burglary was her presence for the initial conversation between defendant and Fehring, there was no evidence that she “took part in the preparation or perpetration of the [burglary] with intent to assist therein” (People v. Weaver, 52 A.D.3d 138, 140, 860 N.Y.S.2d 223 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], revd. on other grounds 12 N.Y.3d 433, 882 N.Y.S.2d 357, 909 N.E.2d 1195 [2009] ; see People v. Moyer, 75 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 906 N.Y.S.2d 175 [2010] ; compare People v. Adams, 307 A.D.2d 475, 476–477, 763 N.Y.S.2d 347 [2003], lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 566, 775 N.Y.S.2d 784, 807 N.E.2d 897 [2003] ). Defendant's related argument that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to request a corroboration instruction with respect to Battista's testimony thus also fails, as “counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise an issue that has little or no chance of success” (People v. Morrison, 127 A.D.3d 1341, 1345, 6 N.Y.S.3d 781 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 [2004] ; People v. Moyer, 75 A.D.3d at 1007, 906 N.Y.S.2d 175 ). Defendant also asks us to employ “the clarity of hindsight” to determine how counsel's cross-examination of Fehring “might have been more effective” (People v. Thomas, 105 A.D.3d 1068, 1071, 962 N.Y.S.2d 756 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1010, 971 N.Y.S.2d 262, 993...