| People v Ramos |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04880 [129 AD3d 1205] |
| June 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vIvan Ramos, Appellant. |
Joseph Nalli, Fort Plain, for appellant.
James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (Kelli P. McCoski of counsel), forrespondent.
Devine, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Montgomery County(Catena, J.), rendered February 5, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of thecrimes of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree (twocounts).
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on November 29, 2011, two men committed a homeinvasion robbery at an apartment in the City of Amsterdam, Montgomery County. One ofthe residents was locking the doors to the apartment and, while he was doing so,observed two masked men on the back porch. The men, brandishing a shotgun and aknife, forced their way past the resident and stole various items from the apartment.Defendant was identified as one of the perpetrators and was thereafter charged in anindictment with two counts each of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the firstdegree. Following a jury trial, he was convicted as charged. County Court sentenced him,as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to befollowed by postrelease supervision of five years. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant does not dispute that the home invasion occurred. He instead asserts thatthe proof identifying him as one of the perpetrators was wanting, and that his convictionswere accordingly unsupported by legally sufficient evidence and were against the weightof the evidence. Initially, defendant preserved his legal sufficiency argument "by hismotion for dismissal at the close of the People's case addressing the claimed deficienciesin the evidence" (People vAcevedo, 118 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2014]; see People v Gray, 86 NY2d10, 19 [1995]). Turning to the merits of that argument, three of the four residents of theapartment testified at [*2]trial. The three residents hadample opportunity to observe the two assailants, one of whom was a tall man wearing anorange ski mask. The three residents had all encountered defendant before and identifiedhim as the man in the orange ski mask, noting his size, distinctive eyes and deep voice.The People also presented the testimony of Mario Rios, who had previously dateddefendant's sister. Rios has an extensive criminal history, and a coworker implied that hehad committed the home invasion with defendant. Rios angrily demanded an explanationfrom defendant, who indicated that he "had a little something set up" and describeddetails regarding the incident.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we have nodifficulty concluding that "there is [a] valid line of reasoning and permissible inferenceswhich could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury" (People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; see People v Gordon, 101 AD3d 1473, 1476-1477 [2012];People v Laurey, 24 AD3d1107, 1109 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 815 [2006]). Defendantcross-examined the three residents regarding the basis for their identifications, andstrenuously attacked the credibility of Rios given his motivations to implicate defendant.Nevertheless, "[e]valuating the evidence in a neutral light, weighing the probative forceof the conflicting testimony and considering the relative strength of the inferences to bedrawn therefrom, while giving due deference to the jury's credibility determinations, wefind that the jury's verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Robles, 115 AD3d30, 33 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1202 [2014] [internal quotation marks andcitations omitted]; see People v Gordon, 101 AD3d at 1476-1477).
Defendant made no objection to the Sandoval ruling at the close of thehearing on that issue and, as such, his present challenge to the ruling is unpreserved (see People v Burch, 97 AD3d987, 990 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1101 [2012]; People v Phillips, 55 AD3d1145, 1147-1148 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 899 [2008]). Lastly, givendefendant's eventful criminal history and his failure to accept responsibility for his role inthese violent crimes, the sentence imposed was not harsh or excessive (see People v Fomby, 119AD3d 1293, 1293 [2014]; People v Bush, 75 AD3d 917, 920 [2010], lvdenied 15 NY3d 919 [2010]).
Lahtinen, J.P., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.