| People v Warrington |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 08413 [155 AD3d 1450] |
| November 30, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lorne Warrington, Appellant. |
Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton (Cynthia Feathers of counsel), forappellant.
Jason M. Carusone, Acting District Attorney, Lake George (Rebecca Nealon of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.),rendered February 17, 2016, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of predatorysexual assault against a child, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree,incest in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child(two counts).
Defendant was charged in an August 2015 indictment with predatory sexual assault against achild, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, incest in the first degree,sexual abuse in the first degree and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The chargesstemmed from allegations that defendant, an adult male, subjected the eight-year-old victim, aclose relative, to various types of sexual abuse on two occasions in 2013. Following a jury trial,defendant was convicted as charged. County Court thereafter sentenced him to an aggregateprison term of 29 years to life to be followed by, as amended, 20 years of postreleasesupervision.[FN*] Defendantappeals from the original judgment of conviction, and we affirm.
[*2] Defendant argues that the verdict was against the weight ofthe evidence. The trial proof shows that, after the victim disclosed the abuse in 2015, defendantwas interviewed by law enforcement officials and eventually gave a written statement in whichhe confessed in detail to two incidents of abuse. Defendant stated that the incidents occurred inthe spring and September of 2013, when the victim was home sick from school and being caredfor by him. He further described how he satisfied his base desires by rubbing his hand against thevictim's vagina during both incidents and performing oral and vaginal sex upon her during thesecond. This detailed confession "was of itself sufficient to establish his culpability" of all thecharged offenses (People v Barcomb, 256 AD2d 926, 927 [1998], lv denied 94NY2d 798 [1999]; see People v Safian, 46 NY2d 181, 186 [1978]; People v Nolan, 2 AD3d 1221,1222 [2003]).
Corroboration of defendant's confession was needed in order to secure a conviction(see CPL 60.50), but all that was required in that regard was "some proof, of whateverweight, that a crime was committed by someone" (People v Daniels, 37 NY2d 624, 629[1975]; accord People v Wilbur, 108AD3d 878, 879 [2013]; People vLapi, 105 AD3d 1084, 1086 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]). Thevictim described the abuse in her testimony and, while her testimony contained someinconsistencies, those are "not uncommon in the testimony of young witnesses" and did notrender hers "incredible as a matter of law" (People v Din, 110 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2013], lv denied 22NY3d 1137 [2014]). Her testimony, as well as proof that she was home sick from school andalone with defendant in May and September 2013, sufficiently corroborated defendant'sconfession (see People v Lapi, 105 AD3d at 1086; People v Flemming, 101 AD3d 1483, 1485-1487 [2012], lvdenied 21 NY3d 942 [2013]; People v Barcomb, 256 AD2d at 927). Defendantattacked the victim's credibility at trial, pointing to the lack of physical evidence, and suggestedthat an investigator fed him details in making his confession. Nevertheless, even assuming thatacquittal on any of the counts was a reasonable possibility, viewing the evidence in a neutral lightand according deference to the jury's superior opportunity to assess witness credibility, we aresatisfied "that the verdict was in accord with the weight of the evidence" (People v Lapi,105 AD3d at 1086; see People vKancharla, 23 NY3d 294, 302-303 [2014]).
Finally, despite his lack of a significant criminal history, we do not agree with defendant thathis sentence was harsh and excessive. Defendant exploited a position of trust to repeatedlyvictimize a young relative in his care and, despite having confessed to this behavior, he thereafterrefused to take any responsibility or express remorse for it. We do not, as a result, perceive anyabuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the aggregatesentence (see People v Thiel, 134AD3d 1237, 1240 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1156 [2016]; People v Gokey, 134 AD3d 1246,1248 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1069 [2016]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *:After learning that the originalterms of postrelease supervision imposed on three of the convictions were illegal, County Courtamended the original sentence to impose appropriate periods of postrelease supervision.