People v. Weakfall

• Decision Date: 30 September 2011
• Citation: 929 N.Y.S.2d 920,87 A.D.3d 1353,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06748
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.Alexander R. WEAKFALL, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

87 A.D.3d 1353

929 N.Y.S.2d 920

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 06748

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Alexander R. WEAKFALL, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Sept. 30, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAppeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered September 15, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.Kristin F. Splain, Conflict Defender, Rochester (Kimberly J. Czapranski of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Nicole M. Fantigrossi of Counsel), for respondent.MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20), petit larceny (§ 155.25), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree (§ 145.00[1] ). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People's proof was specifically directed at the alleged legal insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction raised by defendant on appeal ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), we conclude that defendant failed to renew that motion after presenting evidence and therefore failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence ( see People v. Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 889, 826 N.Y.S.2d 599, 860 N.E.2d 61; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329, rearg.denied 97 N.Y.2d 678, 738 N.Y.S.2d 292, 764 N.E.2d 396). In any event, that contention is without merit. “It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, the standard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is ‘whether any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the [factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People’ ” ( Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 62, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329; see People v. Daniels, 75 A.D.3d 1169, 904 N.Y.S.2d 859, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 892, 912 N.Y.S.2d 581, 938 N.E.2d 1016). Here, the circumstantial evidence, including the track of footprints in the fresh snow leading from the scene of the crime to the location where defendant was arrested and his exclusive possession of copper pipe taken in the course of the burglary, provides legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction ( see People v. Session, 48 A.D.3d 1067, 849 N.Y.S.2d 742, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 816, 857 N.Y.S.2d 50, 886...