People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 21 November 1988 |
| Citation | 144 A.D.2d 600,534 N.Y.S.2d 1021 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alonzo SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Michael E. Lipson, Garden City, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Randi B. Koch, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, BROWN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered July 23, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with burglary after he entered the bedroom of a cotenant and removed some of her belongings. The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction must be reversed because all of the elements of burglary in the second degree were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserts that the bedroom of the cotenant was not a "building", as required by Penal Law § 140.25, and further claims that since he was privileged to be in the main area of the house he could not have "entered unlawfully". We find no merit to the defendant's contentions. The tenant's room was independent of the rest of the house, and should be considered a separate "dwelling" within a "building", as well as part of the main building (People v. Pringle, 96 A.D.2d 873, 465 N.Y.S.2d 742). The fact that the defendant was properly in the common areas of the house did not give him a license to enter the locked room of another tenant (People v. Bell, 131 A.D.2d 859, 517 N.Y.S.2d 219, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 749, 520 N.Y.S.2d 1024, 514 N.E.2d 1376; People v. Borazzo, 137 A.D.2d 96, 528 N.Y.S.2d 99, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 916, 532 N.Y.S.2d 850, 529 N.E.2d 180; People v. Bull, 136 A.D.2d 929, 524 N.Y.S.2d 909 lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 966, 529 N.Y.S.2d 78, 524 N.E.2d 432).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Christmas, 110 A.D.2d 707, 487 N.Y.S.2d 608; People v. Velasquez, 107 A.D.2d 726, 484 N.Y.S.2d 84; People v. Thompson, 105 A.D.2d 762, 481 N.Y.S.2d 414).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mesko
..."[t]he fact that the defendant was properly in the common areas of the house did not give him a license to enter" it (People v. Smith, 144 A.D.2d 600, 601, 534 N.Y.S.2d 1021 [1988] ; see People v. Clarke, 185 A.D.2d 124, 125, 585 N.Y.S.2d 738 [1992], affd. 81 N.Y.2d 777, 593 N.Y.S.2d 784, 6......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...burglary even if defendant entered the building as a whole with license or without the intent to commit a crime (see People v. Smith, 144 A.D.2d 600, 534 N.Y.S.2d 1021 [2d Dept. 1988] ).We find no compelling reason for reducing defendant's sentence in the interest of justice. We have consid......
-
People v. Lopez
...see also Wesolic v. State, 837 P.2d 130 (Alaska App.1992); State v. Vowell, 9 Haw.App. 307, 837 P.2d 1308 (1992); People v. Smith, 144 A.D.2d 600, 534 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (1988). We agree with the reasoning of those decisions and conclude that the instruction was appropriate, and in a similar evi......
-
Crunk v. State
...house unlawfully entered locked rooms that owner had reserved in lease for private use) (emphasis added); People v. Smith, 144 A.D.2d 600, 534 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (2 Dept.1988) (holding that defendant who entered locked bedroom of co-tenant did so unlawfully) (emphasis We find that under the fact......