People v. Rumley

• Decision Date: 23 January 2013
• Citation: 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00361,958 N.Y.S.2d 200,102 A.D.3d 894
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Yakik RUMLEY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

102 A.D.3d 894
958 N.Y.S.2d 200
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00361

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Yakik RUMLEY, appellant.

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

Jan. 23, 2013.

[958 N.Y.S.2d 201]

Dratel & Mysliwiec, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Joshua L. Dratel and Alice L. Fontier of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Rona I. Kugler of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[102 A.D.3d 894]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered December 21, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (two counts) and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the convictions of burglary in the second degree under counts one and two of the indictment to a conviction of criminal trespass in the second degree and vacating the sentences imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support the defendant's convictions of burglary in the second degree under counts one and two of the indictment. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, there was no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could have led a rational jury to conclude that, at the time of his [102 A.D.3d 895]unlawful entry, the defendant intended to commit a crime in the subject building ( see People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 547 N.Y.S.2d 620, 546 N.E.2d 913).

The evidence showed that the defendant and his girlfriend, to whom he had once been engaged, were involved in a three-year long tumultuous relationship in which they would often break up and then reconcile. After the couple traveled to Virginia in February 2009, the girlfriend decided that she wanted to end the relationship and, therefore, did not visit the defendant at his apartment or return his telephone calls. After the girlfriend avoided him for a week, the defendant went to the apartment of the friend with whom the girlfriend was staying, knocked on the door, and asked to speak to the girlfriend. The girlfriend's friend refused to permit the defendant to enter the apartment. The defendant...