| People v Avilez |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08829 [56 AD3d 1176] |
| November 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie A.Avilez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Loretta S. Courtney of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedJune 30, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the seconddegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, ofburglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), arising from his having entered anattached garage and taking items, including a snowblower, without the owner's permission.Defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence becausefingerprint identification evidence was the sole direct proof identifying him as the perpetrator,and the conclusions of the fingerprint examiner were not reliable. We reject that contention.Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning andpermissible inferences that could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jurybased on the evidence at trial (seegenerally People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]; People v Bleakley, 69NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Based on the fingerprint identification evidence and the testimony of theprosecution witnesses, a rational juror could have found that the fingerprints on the snowblowerand broken window glass were left by the perpetrator, that defendant had touched the brokenglass and removed the snowblower from the garage without the owner's permission, and thus thatdefendant had burglarized the dwelling. We also reject defendant's contention that the verdict isagainst the weight of the evidence, particularly in view of the great deference afforded to thejury's credibility determinations (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495; People v Carducci, 48 AD3d 1081[2008]).
Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance ofcounsel. The alleged claims of ineffective assistance set forth by defendant " 'are based largely onhis hindsight disagreements with defense counsel's trial strategies, and defendant failed to meethis burden of establishing the absence of any legitimate explanations for those strategies' " (People v Odom, 53 AD3d 1084,1087 [2008]; see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith,Centra, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.