People v. Glover

• Decision Date: 19 April 2018
• Docket Number: 108126
• Citation: 74 N.Y.S.3d 822,160 A.D.3d 1203
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael A. GLOVER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

160 A.D.3d 1203

74 N.Y.S.3d 822

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Michael A. GLOVER, Appellant.

108126

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

Calendar Date: February 20, 2018

Decided and Entered: April 19, 2018

Tracy Donovan–Laughlin, Oneonta, for appellant.

Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephanie M. Milks of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pritzker, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered December 9, 2015, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and petit larceny.

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and petit larceny based on allegations that he knowingly deposited a forged check worth $990 into another person's bank account. After a bench trial, defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years in prison for the criminal possession conviction and one year in jail for the petit larceny conviction. He was also ordered to pay restitution. Defendant appeals and we affirm.

Defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the elements of intent and knowledge for the conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Defense counsel's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not " ‘specifically directed at the [element of intent]’ " and, therefore, that issue is unpreserved ( People v. Green, 141 A.D.3d 1036, 1037, 36 N.Y.S.3d 312 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1072, 47 N.Y.S.3d 231, 69 N.E.3d 1027 [2016], quoting People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ). Defendant's contention with respect to the element of knowledge, while preserved, is unavailing.

When conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluate whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" ( People v. Graham, 138 A.D.3d 1242, 1242, 29 N.Y.S.3d 656 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 930, 40 N.Y.S.3d 358, 63 N.E.3d 78 [2016] ). As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he [or she] utters or possesses any forged instrument" ( Penal Law § 170.25 ).

The evidence at trial revealed that defendant had access to the check during the time period in which it was stolen. Both the victim and the victim's boyfriend testified that defendant was left alone in the victim's vehicle with her purse and checkbook readily...