| People v Guarino |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08246 [55 AD3d 473] |
| October 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Raymond Guarino, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Ellen Stanfield Friedman of counsel),for respondent.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Goldberg, J.), rendered October 5,2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in fourthdegree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencinghim, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, and also convicting him,upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and bailjumping in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3 to 6 years, to runconsecutively to the sentences imposed on the trial conviction, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also find that the verdict was based on legallysufficient evidence. Furthermore, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). On the contrary, we find the evidence tobe overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerningcredibility; we note that the codefendant's testimony was thoroughly corroborated by policeobservations. The evidence established that defendant criminally possessed lost property that hadbecome stolen within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.05 (2) (b). Defendant acquired thevictim's lost purse and credit cards and had no intention of making any effort, reasonable orotherwise, to return them; on the contrary, he intended to use the credit cards to benefit himself.
Any error in the receipt of uncharged crimes evidence was harmless in view of theoverwhelming proof of defendant's guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentences. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli,Williams, Buckley and Renwick, JJ.