| People v Glover |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 02671 [160 AD3d 1203] |
| April 19, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael A. Glover, Appellant. |
Tracy Donovan-Laughlin, Oneonta, for appellant.
Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephanie M. Milks of counsel), forrespondent.
Pritzker, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.),rendered December 9, 2015, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crimes ofcriminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and petit larceny.
Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degreeand petit larceny based on allegations that he knowingly deposited a forged check worth $990into another person's bank account. After a bench trial, defendant was convicted as charged andsentenced to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years in prison for the criminal possession conviction andone year in jail for the petit larceny conviction. He was also ordered to pay restitution. Defendantappeals and we affirm.
Defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the elements ofintent and knowledge for the conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in thesecond degree. Defense counsel's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not" 'specifically directed at the [element of intent]' " and, therefore, that issue isunpreserved (People v Green, 141AD3d 1036, 1037 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1072 [2016], quoting People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Defendant's contention with respect to the element ofknowledge, while preserved, is unavailing.
When conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, "we view the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the People and evaluate whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissibleinferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis[*2]of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proofand burden requirements for every element of the crime charged" (People v Graham, 138 AD3d1242, 1242 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted], lv denied 28NY3d 930 [2016]). As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of criminal possession of a forgedinstrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent todefraud, deceive or injure another, he [or she] utters or possesses any forged instrument" (PenalLaw § 170.25).
The evidence at trial revealed that defendant had access to the check during the time periodin which it was stolen. Both the victim and the victim's boyfriend testified that defendant was leftalone in the victim's vehicle with her purse and checkbook readily accessible. A rational personcould conclude that, while alone in the vehicle, defendant rifled through the victim's purse andfound her checkbook, as evidenced by testimony from the victim about an envelope that woundup outside of her purse and under the passenger seat. Moreover, the investigating police officertestified regarding a telephone conversation with defendant in which he confessed to stealing thecheck. Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, there was more than enough evidencefor a rational person to conclude that defendant stole the check and, therefore, knew that thecheck was forged (compare People v Green, 53 NY2d 651, 652 [1981]). Thus, there waslegally sufficient evidence that defendant committed the crime of criminal possession of a forgedinstrument in the second degree (seePeople v Hold, 101 AD3d 1692, 1693 [2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 1016 [2013];People v Garrand, 112 AD2d 481, 481-482 [1985], lv denied 66 NY2d 919[1985]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.