People v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 14 July 2016
• Citation: 35 N.Y.S.3d 742,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05513,141 A.D.3d 828
• Parties: The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. James E. LAWRENCE, also known as Black, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

141 A.D.3d 828
35 N.Y.S.3d 742
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05513

The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent,
v.
James E. LAWRENCE, also known as Black, Appellant.

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

July 14, 2016.

35 N.Y.S.3d 743

Mitch Kessler, Cohoes, for appellant.

35 N.Y.S.3d 744

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., McCARTHY, GARRY, CLARK and MULVEY, JJ.

MULVEY, J.

141 A.D.3d 828

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Lynch, J.), rendered May 24, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts).

In June 2012, defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts) after he and three other individuals—Shaun Green, Nakeya Rodriguez and Antoine Daniels—allegedly entered the home of 86–year–old Fred Freije (hereinafter the victim) and beat and robbed him. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 15 years with five years

141 A.D.3d 829

of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant initially argues that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, defendant contends that the only direct evidence implicating him in the crimes came from the uncorroborated accomplice testimony of Rodriguez and Daniels, that the testimony of Andrea Lorenzo only established defendant's consciousness of guilt and that there was no proof that a black face mask recovered from among the stolen items had been worn by him during the robbery.¹ In determining whether a conviction is against the weight of the evidence, we look first at all the credible evidence and, if a different finding would not have been unreasonable, then, “like the trier of fact below, [we] weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Hebert, 68 A.D.3d 1530, 1531, 891 N.Y.S.2d 708 [2009], lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 841, 901 N.Y.S.2d 147, 927 N.E.2d 568 [2010] ). Based on the weight of the credible evidence, we then decide if the jury was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). In such analysis, we must “determine whether all the elements of the charged crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v. Reeves, 124 A.D.3d 1068, 1068, 1 N.Y.S.3d 547 [2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1076, 12 N.Y.S.3d 627, 34 N.E.3d 378 [2015] ; see People v. Gibson, 118 A.D.3d 1157, 1159, 987 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2014], lv. denied 23 N.Y.3d 1062, 994 N.Y.S.2d 321, 18 N.E.3d 1142[2014] ; People v. Hebert, 68 A.D.3d at 1531, 891 N.Y.S.2d 708 ). Finally, we evaluate the evidence in a neutral light and “accord deference to the jury's resolution of the credibility issues involved, given its opportunity to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor throughout this process” (People v. Shoemaker, 119 A.D.3d 1073, 1074–1075, 989 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 992, 10 N.Y.S.3d 535, 32 N.E.3d 972 [2015] ; see

35 N.Y.S.3d 745

People v. Phelan, 82 A.D.3d 1279, 1282, 918 N.Y.S.2d 608 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 799, 929 N.Y.S.2d 107, 952 N.E.2d 1102 [2011] ).

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he [or she] knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein” and when “he [or she] or another participant in the crime ... [c]auses physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime” or “[u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument” (Penal Law § 140.30[2], [3] ). Further, “[a] person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he [or

141 A.D.3d 830

she] forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime ..., he [or she] or another participant in the crime ... [u]ses or threatens the immediate use of a dangerous instrument” (Penal Law § 160.15[3] ). Pursuant to Penal Law § 160.10(2)(a), “[a] person is guilty of robbery in the second degree when he [or she] forcibly steals property and when[,] ... [i]n the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he [or she] or another participant in the crime ... [c]auses physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime.” To prove that an individual is guilty of robbery in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 160.10(1), the People must establish that “he [or she] forcibly steals property and ... [h]e [or she] is aided by another person actually present.” “A person forcibly steals property when he or she uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of ... compelling the owner of such property ... to deliver up the property” (People v. Myrick, 135 A.D.3d 1069, 1070, 22 N.Y.S.3d 691 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Gordon, 23 N.Y.3d 643, 649–650, 992 N.Y.S.2d 700, 16 N.E.3d 1178 [2014] ; People v. Griffin, 122 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 996 N.Y.S.2d 766 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 1164, 15 N.Y.S.3d 296, 36 N.E.3d 99 [2015] ).

At trial, Rodriguez testified that, on June 14, 2012, she, along with Green, Daniels and defendant, went to the victim's home to rob him. According to Rodriguez, it was Lorenzo's idea to rob the victim, and the scheme was discussed with the other participants at Lorenzo's home earlier that day. Rodriguez testified that, at approximately 11:00 p.m., she, Green, Daniels and defendant left Lorenzo's home and headed to the victim's home, where Rodriguez knocked at the victim's back door and asked him if she could use his phone and then his bathroom. When the victim opened his door, Green forced his way into the home, with Rodriguez, Daniels and defendant following. While Rodriguez was in the victim's home, she observed Green hitting the victim with a BB gun and with his hand. Ultimately, the safe in the victim's home was opened and its contents removed. The perpetrators left the victim's home with bags of the victim's property, some of which contained coins from the victim's coin collection. According to Rodriguez, the group then returned to Lorenzo's home, where, in a second floor bathroom, Rodriguez, Green, Daniels and defendant split the stolen property. Thereafter, Green and Daniels left and Rodriguez and defendant stayed at Lorenzo's house overnight. The next morning, Rodriguez called Kelli Lord, her cousin who resides across the street from Lorenzo, and asked her to hold some of the stolen property. Rodriguez also testified that when the police arrived at Lorenzo's home that morning, defendant took

141 A.D.3d 831

one of the bags containing stolen coins and placed it in the basement.

Lorenzo testified that Green, Rodriguez, Daniels and defendant were at her home

35 N.Y.S.3d 746

on June 14, 2012. Lorenzo denied being involved in the burglary plans, testifying that the group sat outside on her porch and that she was unable to hear what they were discussing. According to Lorenzo, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Rodriguez, Green, Daniels and defendant left and, when they returned approximately an hour to an hour and a half later, they were “in an uproar.” Rodriguez had a brown, leather bag containing jewelry and other items, and defendant had a book bag with him. Lorenzo stated that there were also additional bags of coins and other odds and ends and that, when Green and Daniels returned, the four went into the bathroom with “a bunch of stuff.” Lorenzo testified that, at some point, Rodriguez informed her that the group had just robbed someone, that Green had “pistol-whipped” the victim and that they were scared that they were in trouble. Thereafter, Green and Daniels left, each taking a bag, and defendant and Rodriguez spent the night. When the police arrived at Lorenzo's home the next day, she informed the police that defendant had taken a bag down to her basement. Testimony from a crime scene technician with the State Police noted that evidence confiscated from Lorenzo's home pursuant to a search warrant included, among other...