| People v Guzman |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02453 [116 AD3d 790] |
| April 9, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Harry Guzman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco,Steven A. Bender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Holdman, J.), rendered July 9, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vBetancourt, 68 NY2d 707 [1986]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]),we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the second degreebeyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; People v Hammon, 47 AD3d644 [2008]; People vBalaz, 43 AD3d 949 [2007]; People v Moon, 11 AD3d 486 [2004]; People vBrown, 288 AD2d 233 [2001]; People v Hirsch, 280 AD2d 612 [2001];People v Murray, 168 AD2d 573 [1990]). Contrary to the defendant's contention,his intent to commit a crime within the subject residence was sufficiently established bycircumstantial evidence (see People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 380 [1980]; People v Bergman, 70 AD3d1494 [2010]; People v Gilmore, 199 AD2d 410, 411 [1993]; People vLide, 192 AD2d 557, 558 [1993]; People v Murray, 168 AD2d 573 [1990];People v Caraballo, 138 AD2d 725 [1988]), including DNA evidence linking thedefendant to the crime (seePeople v Jones, 105 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2013]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d745, 746 [2003]; People v Rush, 242 AD2d 108 [1998]).
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,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]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to all of theconvictions was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court conducted an extensivecolloquy, following which the defendant executed a knowing, voluntary, and intelligentwaiver of his right to counsel (see People v Providence, 2 NY3d 579, 583 [2004];People v Vivenzio, 62 NY2d 775 [1984]; People v Anderson, 94 AD3d 1010, 1012 [2012]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is withoutmerit. Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Duffy, JJ., concur.