| People v Wellcome |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01525 [70 AD3d 983] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SeanWellcome, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Ronnie Jane Lamm and GuyArcidiacono of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.),rendered February 14, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assaultin the second degree, and resisting arrest (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictionsof burglary in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888 [2006];People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266 [2004]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond areasonable doubt. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence as to those counts (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt onboth counts of burglary in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The evidence with respect to the defendant's prior bad acts was properly admitted at trial asrelevant to, inter alia, the defendant's motive or intent in entering or remaining unlawfully at thesubject residence, given that the defendant placed his intent in issue by introducing anintoxication defense (see People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 243 [1987]; People vIngram, 71 NY2d 474, 479-481 [1988]; People v Green, 56 AD3d 490 [2008];People v Lawrence, 297 AD2d 290, 291 [2002]; People v Newby, 291 AD2d460 [2002]; People v Wright, 288 AD2d 409 [2001]).
The defendant's contentions that the trial court erred in failing to give proper limitinginstructions concerning the jury's use of the testimony regarding these prior bad acts, and thatreferences to his classification as a sex offender were improperly admitted into evidence, areunpreserved for appellate [*2]review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Mestres, 41 AD3d 618, 618-619 [2007]; People v Webb, 1 AD3d542, 543 [2003]). In any event, the court gave an appropriate limiting jury instruction (seePeople v Green, 56 AD3d at 490-491; People v Martinez, 243 AD2d 732 [1997];People v Simmons, 218 AD2d 677, 678 [1995]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin andAustin, JJ., concur.