| People v Rupert |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04266 [118 AD3d 1126] |
| June 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vLisa L. Rupert, Appellant. |
Rosemary Phillips, Canton, for appellant.
Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone (Glenn MacNeill of counsel), forrespondent.
Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County(Richards, J.), rendered April 20, 2012, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial ofthe crimes of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.
Defendant allegedly was the driver for codefendant Ian J. Johns, who grabbed apurse[FN*]from thevictim in the parking lot of the St. Lawrence Mall in the Town of Massena, St. LawrenceCounty, and then ran to defendant's waiting car for escape. A witness supplieddefendant's license plate to police and she and Johns were later arrested. Following anonjury trial, she was found guilty, as an accomplice, of robbery in the third degree andgrand larceny in the fourth degree. She now appeals arguing that the evidence waslegally insufficient to establish [*2]that she shared Johns'criminal intent as to both crimes and also that there was legally insufficient evidence ofthe use of physical force to support the robbery conviction.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in thelight most favorable to the People and determine whether there is a valid line ofreasoning and permissible inferences to support the factfinder's verdict (see People v Ramos, 19 NY3d133, 136 [2012]; People vDegiorgio, 36 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 921 [2007],cert denied 552 US 999 [2007]). "To support a conviction based on accompliceliability, the evidence must demonstrate that a defendant 'share[d] the intent or purposeof the principal actor' " (People v Bush, 75 AD3d 917, 918 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 919 [2010], quoting People v Kaplan, 76 NY2d 140, 144[1990]). "Mental culpability . . . may be inferred from a defendant's conductand from the surrounding circumstances" (People v Bush, 75 AD3d at 918[citation omitted]; see People vMcCottery, 90 AD3d 1323, 1324 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 975[2012]). Proof at trial included testimony that defendant drove Johns to the mall and shestayed in the car while he took the victim's purse. As Johns fled from the victim,defendant backed her car up between the rows of vehicles in the parking lot to meet him.He entered the car and defendant immediately sped away at a high rate of speed. While inthe car, Johns removed from the purse, among other things, a large amount of cash and astack of scratch-off lottery tickets. He placed the lottery tickets in defendant's car, wherethey were later found when the police executed a search warrant. Defendant and Johnscontinued to defendant's apartment and, later that day, defendant permitted the police toenter the apartment. Johns was hiding in the apartment and considerable amounts of cashwere observed laying on a bedroom floor. There was sufficient proof to permit thefactfinder to infer that defendant acted as an accomplice in the crimes.
We consider next defendant's argument that there was not legally sufficient evidenceof the use of physical force in the taking of the victim's property to support the robberyconviction. "[R]obbery is a 'forcible stealing' in which a defendant 'uses or threatens theimmediate use of physical force upon another person' " (People vRamirez, 89 NY2d 444, 452 [1996], quoting Penal Law § 160.00). Thevictim indicated that she saw Johns approaching immediately before he grabbed herpurse and that she was alarmed by his appearance. She resisted Johns' actions, resultingin a brief struggle. Later, her shoulder was sore from the struggle such that she took painmedicine. Viewed most favorably to the People, the evidence established that physicalforce was used in taking the victim's property (see People v Simmons, 31 AD3d 1051, 1053 [2006], lvdenied 7 NY3d 929 [2006]; People v Ross, 180 AD2d 698, 698 [1992],lv denied 79 NY2d 1053 [1992]; cf. People v Dobbs, 24 AD3d 1043, 1044 [2005];People v Davis, 71 AD2d 607, 607-608 [1979]).
Stein, Garry and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Footnote *:At trial the People'switnesses referred to the victim's "personal belongings" rather than her "purse" sinceCounty Court had precluded direct reference to the purse as a discovery sanctionimposed on the People. However, on appeal defendant uses the word purse and, thus, forthe sake of simplicity and clarity, we also will use purse, which is where all the personalbelongings that were taken from the victim were located.