People v. Wilbur

• Decision Date: 11 July 2013
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Earl M. WILBUR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

108 A.D.3d 878
969 N.Y.S.2d 587
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05248

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Earl M. WILBUR, Appellant.

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

July 11, 2013.

[969 N.Y.S.2d 588]

Samuel D. Castellino, Elmira, for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Peter N. DeLucia of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY and EGAN Jr., JJ.

EGAN JR., J.

[108 A.D.3d 878]Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered June 30, 2011, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

On the afternoon of June 19, 2010, the victim, her children and her brother left the victim's apartment at 21 Frederick Street in the City of Binghamton, Broome County to attend a family barbeque at a local park. Prior to leaving for the park, the victim's brother borrowed a cooking grill from defendant, who was the victim's upstairs neighbor. Upon returning to her apartment later that evening, the victim discovered that the plexiglass window of her back door was shattered and her two flat screen televisions—measuring 19 and 22 inches—were missing. In response to the victim's inquiry, defendant, who was sitting outside by the entrance to his apartment, denied hearing any commotion or having any knowledge of the intrusion.

Two days later, Robert Seeley, who did repair work for the owner of 21 Frederick Street, informed the local police that defendant was “bragging about” breaking into the victim's apartment. According to Seeley, defendant admitted that he used a piece of wood to smash the window on the back door of the apartment and thereafter stole the victim's two flat screen televisions, which defendant then secreted in an old carriage house located to the rear of the property. Defendant also showed [108 A.D.3d 879]Seeley the televisions in question, which Seeley described as “[t]wo small, maybe 17, maybe 19–inch flat screen TVs.” As a result, defendant was indicted and charged with burglary in the second degree. Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted as charged and thereafter was sentenced to five years in prison followed by five years of postrelease supervision. This appeal ensued.

Defendant initially contends that his conviction is not supported by legally

[969 N.Y.S.2d 589]

sufficient evidence—specifically, that the People failed to adequately corroborate his statements to Seeley ( seeCPL 60.50). We disagree. While it is true that defendant cannot be convicted solely upon the basis of his admissions to Seeley (as embodied in a voice mail that defendant left Seeley on the evening of the burglary ¹ and their face-to-face conversation the following morning), the corroboration requirement set forth in CPL 60.50 “merely requires some proof, of whatever weight, that a crime was committed by someone” ( People v. McGee, 20 N.Y.3d 513, 517, 964 N.Y.S.2d 73, 986 N.E.2d 907 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Lapi, 105 A.D.3d 1084, 1086, 962 N.Y.S.2d 768 [2013];People v. Flemming, 101 A.D.3d 1483, 1485, 956 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2012],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 942 [2013];People v. Baltes, 75 A.D.3d 656, 659, 904 N.Y.S.2d 554 [2010],lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 918, 913 N.Y.S.2d 645, 939 N.E.2d 811 [2010] ). Such additional proof, which “need not establish guilt or every detail of the crime or confession” ( People v. Johnson, 79...