| People v Myers |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07845 [100 AD3d 1567] |
| November 16, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John W.Myers, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Laura T. Bittner of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J.), renderedJune 23, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the thirddegree, criminal mischief in the third degree and petit larceny.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia,burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and petit larceny (§ 155.25),defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We rejectthat contention. Initially, we conclude that defendant failed to preserve for our review hiscontention that the petit larceny and burglary convictions are not supported by legally sufficientevidence that property was stolen or that he intended to commit a crime, respectively, because hismotion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically directed at those issues (see People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, we conclude that the evidence is legallysufficient to support the conviction with respect to all of the charges (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Based upon all the evidence at trial, including thecircumstantial evidence that the church's collection boxes had recently been forcibly opened andwere empty and that there was a single track of footprints in the snow leading from defendant'svehicle to the crime scene and then back to defendant, a rational trier of fact could determine thatthe elements of the crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see generally People vRossey, 89 NY2d 970, 971-972 [1997]). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of theelements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we concludethat the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69NY2d at 495). Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.