| People v Hunt |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05055 [74 AD3d 1741] |
| June 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rachel L.Hunt, Appellant. |
—[*1] R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Jeffrey L. Taylor of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), renderedFebruary 29, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in thesecond degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a jury verdict of,inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Defendant failed topreserve for our review her contention that County Court erred in considering matters outside therecord when sentencing her (see Peoplev Garson, 69 AD3d 650, 652 [2010]; People v Rodriguez, 61 AD3d 460 [2009], lv denied 12NY3d 920 [2009]; People vCampbell, 54 AD3d 959 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 756 [2009]). In any event,that contention is without merit. "A sentencing court may consider any relevant information,subject only to the due process requirement that the information is 'reliable and accurate' "(People v Thomas, 206 AD2d 708, 709 [1994], quoting People v Outley, 80NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). We conclude that the court's sentencing remarks, which were based oninformation elicited at trial and which sought to discourage defendant from continuing arelationship with her boyfriend, whom she aided in the commission of the crimes at issue,reflected proper sentencing goals, one of which is defendant's rehabilitation (see generallyUnited States v Grayson, 438 US 41, 45 [1978]). To the extent that defendant challenges theseverity of the sentence, we conclude that it is not unduly harsh or severe.
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Although a differentfinding would not have been unreasonable, the jury was entitled to discredit the testimony ofdefendant and her boyfriend concerning the extent of defendant's involvement in the crimes.According deference to the jury's resolution of credibility issues (see People v Johnson, 70 AD3d1188, 1189-1190 [2010]; People vBrown, 70 AD3d 1341 [2010]; People v Pearson, 69 AD3d 1226, 1228 [2010]), we conclude thatthe jury was justified in finding defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (seeDanielson, 9 NY3d at 348-349).[*2]
Defendant failed to preserve for our review hercontention that the court erred in allowing the People to present evidence of uncharged crimes attrial (see People v Cala, 50 AD3d1581 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]; People v Hyatt, 50 AD3d 436 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d960 [2008]; People v Cabus, 40AD3d 540 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1005 [2007]), and we decline to exercise ourpower to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (CPL 470.15[6] [a]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Green and Gorski, JJ.