People v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 19 March 2010
• Citation: 71 A.D.3d 1457,896 N.Y.S.2d 756,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 02259
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Tommy JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

71 A.D.3d 1457
896 N.Y.S.2d 756
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 02259

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Tommy JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.

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

March 19, 2010.

[896 N.Y.S.2d 757]

Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Gerald T. Barth of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.Tommy Jackson, Defendant–Appellant pro se.William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of Counsel), for Respondent.PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ.MEMORANDUM:

[71 A.D.3d 1457] Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) arising out of an incident in which he stole property owned by LeMoyne College (college). We reject defendant's contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The People presented video surveillance and still photographs obtained from that video that depicted a man who was identified as defendant by two security officers employed by the college. Those security officers had encountered defendant on prior occasions. Property that had been stolen from the college was recovered during a search of the home of defendant's parents pursuant to a search warrant, and defendant's mother testified that defendant sometimes stayed in the room where the property was located. Other property stolen from the college was recovered from an individual who testified that he purchased it from defendant. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). The jury was entitled to discredit the testimony of defendant that

[896 N.Y.S.2d 758]

he was not the individual who committed the crimes. The sentence is not unduly harsh and severe.

We reject the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the identification testimony of the two security officers based upon the failure of the People to serve a CPL 710.30 notice with respect to that testimony. Although the security officers viewed [71 A.D.3d 1458] the video and...