| People v Chafla-Sanaicela |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03870 [84 AD3d 828] |
| May 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cristian Chafla-Sanaicela, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Rebecca Kramer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.),rendered September 11, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), assaultin the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjurytrial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of burglary in the first degree (see Penal Law § 140.30 [2], [3]),assault in the second degree (see Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), and criminal possessionof a weapon in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 265.01 [2]), despite hisintoxication. " '[A]n intoxicated person can form the requisite criminal intent to commit a crime,and it is for the trier of fact to decide if the extent of the intoxication acted to negate the elementof intent' " (People v Barresi, 80AD3d 709, 710 [2011], quoting People v Flores, 40 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; see People v Raffaele, 41 AD3d869 [2007]; People v LaGuerre,29 AD3d 820, 822 [2006]; People vMannarino, 35 AD3d 631 [2006]). The defendant's intent to commit a crime and toinjure the victim may be inferred here from the defendant's conduct and the surroundingcircumstances (see People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 303 [1977]; People v Ehikhamenor, 72 AD3d700 [2010]; People v Spurgeon,63 AD3d 863, 864 [2009]; People vGumbs, 58 AD3d 641 [2009]; People v Mei Ying Wang, 33 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]). Moreover, infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), wenevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero,7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.