People v. Santos

• Decision Date: 06 December 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08402,101 A.D.3d 427,955 N.Y.S.2d 323
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Argenis SANTOS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 427

955 N.Y.S.2d 323

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08402

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Argenis SANTOS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Dec. 6, 2012.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jan Hoth of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, RICHTER, ROMÁN, CLARK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered April 26, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to submit criminal trespass in the second degree as a lesser included offense, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, to support such a charge ( see e.g. People v. Zokari, 68 A.D.3d 578, 890 N.Y.S.2d 544 [2009],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 758, 906 N.Y.S.2d 831, 933 N.E.2d 230 [2010];People v. Jones, 33 A.D.3d 461, 822 N.Y.S.2d 283 [2006],lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 926, 827 N.Y.S.2d 695, 860 N.E.2d 997 [2006];People v. Mongen, 157 A.D.2d 82, 555 N.Y.S.2d 260 [1990],appeal dismissed76 N.Y.2d 1015, 565 N.Y.S.2d 764, 566 N.E.2d 1169 [1990] ). The jury would have had no basis for finding that defendant entered unlawfully, but without the intent to unlawfully restrain the victim or otherwise commit a crime, and subsequently formed that intent.

Defendant entered the apartment of his former girlfriend unlawfully, hid under a crib, and grabbed her immediately after she discovered him, telling her that neither the police nor her mother could help her now. He then continuously held her in the apartment against her will for 16 hours. Defendant's conduct was thus inconsistent with a claim that, at the time he entered, he simply wanted to talk to the victim about their relationship.