Judges: Curran, Nemoyer, Peradotto, Scudder, Smith
Filed Date: 3/25/2016
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered May 12, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of burglary in the second degree (four counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of four counts of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), defendant challenges the validity of his waiver of a jury trial. Defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review (see People v Hailey, 128 AD3d 1415, 1415-1416 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 929 [2015]; see generally People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990], rearg denied 75 NY2d 1005 [1990], rearg dismissed 81 NY2d 989 [1993]). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s challenge is without merit inasmuch as “ ‘the record establishes that defendant’s waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent’ ” (Hailey, 128 AD3d at 1416; see People v Moran, 87 AD3d 1312, 1312 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 976 [2012]).
Defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an arrest of defendant because the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. We reject defendant’s contention, inasmuch as “the police had probable cause to arrest him on the basis of statements [of his accomplice] implicating him in the crime” (People v Luciano, 43 AD3d 1183, 1183 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 991 [2007]; see People v Berzups, 49 NY2d 417, 426-427 [1980]; People v Fulton, 133 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1109 [2016]). We also reject defendant’s contention that evidence recovered
We reject defendant’s further contention that the testimony of his accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated and thus that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The record establishes that the People presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the corroboration requirement, including, inter alia, evidence that several items stolen during the burglaries were found in defendant’s residence (see CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Reome, 15 NY3d 188, 191-192 [2010]; People v Cortez, 81 AD3d 742, 742-743 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 894 [2011]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime of burglary in the second degree in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).
Contrary to defendant’s further contention that corrective action is required because the court failed to specify whether the sentences would run consecutively or concurrently, the record establishes that the court sentenced defendant to consecutive terms of incarceration for the first and second counts of burglary in the second degree, and that the sentences for the third and fourth counts would run concurrently. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.