| People v Johnston |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02337 [71 AD3d 1507] |
| March 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Heath E.Johnston, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Leslie E. Swift of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), renderedDecember 19, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of burglary inthe second degree and petit larceny and, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial,of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§155.25), and, upon his plea of guilty, a second count of burglary in the second degree (§140.25 [2]). We reject defendant's contention that the verdict in the nonjury trial is not supportedby legally sufficient evidence. "It is well settled that, even in circumstantial evidence cases, thestandard for appellate review of legal sufficiency issues is whether any valid line of reasoningand permissible inferences could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the[factfinder] on the basis of the evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the People"(People v Pichardo, 34 AD3d1223, 1224 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 926 [2007] [internal quotation marksomitted]; see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 62 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678[2001]). Here, the evidence presented at trial could lead a rational person to the conclusionreached by County Court, i.e., that the dwelling at 86 Aldrich Road was burglarized and thatdefendant committed the burglary (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]; People v Ostrander, 46AD3d 1217, 1218 [2007]; People v White, 144 AD2d 950 [1988], lv denied73 NY2d 1023 [1989]). The same logic supporting the conclusion that the evidence is legallysufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of burglary charged in the first countof the indictment likewise supports the conclusion that the evidence is legally sufficient withrespect to the crime of petit larceny charged in the second count of the indictment (seegenerally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).
Also contrary to defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in light of the crimes in thisnonjury trial (see generally People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against theweight of the evidence (see generally id.). Although a different result would not havebeen unreasonable, it cannot be said that the court failed to give the evidence the weight itshould be accorded (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349; Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).We note, however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant wasconvicted following a jury trial and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convictedfollowing a [*2]nonjury trial (see generally People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286 [2006]).
Finally, based on our rejection of defendant's contentions concerning the legal sufficiencyand weight of the evidence in the nonjury trial, defendant's contention that the plea should bevacated is without merit (cf. People v Fuggazzatto, 62 NY2d 862 [1984]).Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.