People v. Mercado-Ramos

• Decision Date: 04 May 2018
• Docket Number: 270,KA 16–00627
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edgardo J. MERCADO–RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 1516
75 N.Y.S.3d 752

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Edgardo J. MERCADO–RAMOS, Defendant–Appellant.

270
KA 16–00627

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

Entered: May 4, 2018

75 N.Y.S.3d 753

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

JOHN J. FLYNN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (JULIE BENDER FISKE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

75 N.Y.S.3d 754

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the first degree ( Penal Law § 140.30 [3 ] ), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ) and criminal contempt in the first degree (§ 215.51[b][v] ). We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of burglary in the first degree on the ground that the People did not establish that he entered the victim's house with intent to commit a crime therein (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). "[A] defendant's intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the circumstances of the entry ..., as well as from defendant's actions and assertions when confronted" ( People v. Maier, 140 A.D.3d 1603, 1603–1604, 34 N.Y.S.3d 544 [4th Dept. 2016], lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 933, 40 N.Y.S.3d 361, 63 N.E.3d 81 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, we conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer defendant's intent to commit a crime inside the dwelling, including, inter alia, his unauthorized entry through a window while armed with mace and a machete and his violent conduct toward the victim shortly after being confronted inside the dwelling (see People v. Pendarvis, 143 A.D.3d 1275, 1275, 39 N.Y.S.3d 348 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1149, 52 N.Y.S.3d 300, 74 N.E.3d 685 [2017] ; see also People v. Rivera, 41 A.D.3d 1237, 1238, 837 N.Y.S.2d 460 [4th Dept. 2007], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 939, 862 N.Y.S.2d 345, 892 N.E.2d 411 [2008] ). We reject defendant's further contention that the evidence of his intoxication negated the element of intent for the crimes of which he was convicted (see People v. Madore, 145 A.D.3d 1440, 1440, 46 N.Y.S.3d 300 [4th Dept. 2016], lv. denied 29 NY3d 1034, 84 N.E.3d 975 [2017] ; People v. Jackson, 269 A.D.2d 867, 867, 703 N.Y.S.2d 804 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 798, 711 N.Y.S.2d 166, 733 N.E.2d 238 [2000] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of burglary in the first degree 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 [2007] ), we conclude that the verdict finding defendant guilty of that crime is not 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 ).

We reject defendant's further contention that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying his motions for a mistrial during jury deliberations. To the extent that defendant contends that the court should have granted his motions for a mistrial with respect to all three counts of the indictment, we reject that contention inasmuch as his motions were made after the jury indicated that it had reached a verdict on one of the counts (see CPL 310.70[1][a], [b] ; People v. Rivera, 15 N.Y.3d 207, 210–211, 906 N.Y.S.2d 785, 933 N.E.2d 183 [2010] ). We also reject defendant's contention to the extent that he contends that the court erred in denying his motions with respect to the two counts on which the jury had not yet reached a verdict. On two occasions when the deliberating jury sent notes indicating that it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on two of the counts, the court

75 N.Y.S.3d 755

responded appropriately by providing a full Allen charge and instructing the jury to continue deliberating (see People v. Hardy, ...