| People v Lancaster |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 07039 [200 AD3d 1352] |
| December 16, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Johnnie Lancaster, Appellant. |
Hug Law, PLLC, Albany (Matthew C. Hug of counsel), for appellant.
David J. Clegg, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), forrespondent.
Lynch, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.),entered May 1, 2019, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the firstdegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Defendant was charged by indictment with burglary in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with a February 2018 home invasion inthe Town of Saugerties, Ulster County. Defendant was convicted as charged following a jurytrial, at which he represented himself. He was sentenced to a prison term of 20 years, to befollowed by five years of postrelease supervision, upon the burglary conviction and a lesserconcurrent prison term on the weapon possession conviction, as well as $1,100 in restitution.Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that County Court jeopardized his right to a fair trial when it madecertain statements to the jury pool that, in his view, created the potential for prejudice. Asdefendant did not object to the challenged statements, this argument is unpreserved (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Santiago,185 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1097 [2020]). In any event, theremark by County Court that the jury had the opportunity to "assist the court" came at theconclusion of introductory remarks in which the court explained the role of the jury (todeterminate facts) and the court (to state the law) to ensure that defendant received a fair trial.The court was explaining that it was for the jury to determine whether the People proveddefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the court's comment was inartful and ofsome concern, in context, we do not find defendant's right to a fair trial to have beencompromised.
With respect to the burglary conviction, defendant contends that the verdict is against theweight of the evidence as it relates to the dwelling and intent elements of the crime. He firstargues that, even if he entered into a screened-in porch area of the residence, the porch does notqualify as a "dwelling" within the embrace of the Penal Law. He further posits that any entry intothe porch was not to commit a crime but for the innocuous purpose of retrieving an errantly firedcrossbow arrow.
In conducting a weight of the evidence review, this Court must "first determine whether,based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable" (People v Stover, 178 AD3d 1138,1139 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 1163[2020]; see People v Butkiewicz,175 AD3d 792, 793 [2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 1076 [2019]). "Where a differentfinding would not have been unreasonable, this Court must weigh the relative probative force ofconflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn fromthe testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence" (People v Forney, 183 AD3d 1113,1114 [2020[*2]] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted],lv denied 35 NY3d 1065 [2020]; see People v McMillan, 185 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2020], lvdenied 35 NY3d 1114 [2020]).
As charged in the indictment, "[a] person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he [orshe] knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein,and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, he [or she]or another participant in the crime . . . [u]ses or threatens the immediate use of adangerous instrument" (Penal Law § 140.30 [3]). A dwelling "means a buildingwhich is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night" (Penal Law§ 140.00 [3]), and a dangerous instrument means, in pertinent part, "any instrument. . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used orthreatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury" (PenalLaw § 10.00 [13]). In determining whether an instrument is dangerous within themeaning of the statute, "[t]he courts of this [s]tate have consistently adopted [a] use-orientedapproach," which focuses on whether the instrument was "used in a manner whichrender[e]d it readily capable of causing serious physical injury [or death]" (People vCarter, 53 NY2d 113, 116 [1981]).
At trial, the victim testified that, at the time of the incident, he was at home with his wife andthree young children. The residence consisted of two stories and a basement, with all of thebedrooms located on the second floor. The family room was located on the first floor and wasconnected to a screened-in porch, which contained tile flooring, electricity, two couches and adining table. The victim and his family used the porch for "everyday activities" and ate theirmeals there on a regular basis. As to the underlying incident, the victim testified that, around 1:30a.m. on February 23, 2018, he awoke to the sound of his three-year-old son crying, promptinghim to get out of bed, console the child and go back to sleep. When he awoke again at 7:35 a.m.,he went downstairs and noticed that the blinds were cracked in the family room. The victimpulled the blinds back and noticed "a hole in the window" between the family room and theporch. The victim went onto the porch and he observed that "the couches were tossed [and] allthe pillows were off the couches." He also noticed that the room's two screened doors had beentampered with, explaining that there was a rip in one of them and the other was "completelyripped" off of its frame. Moreover, "[t]he banister going down the steps was missing the end capon the stair rail" and the basement window was "completely removed with glass on the exteriorof the home." The victim also found an "arrow" lodged in the wall above the family room couch"at head level." The victim then informed his wife about the discovery, had the family gather inthe bathroom while he performed [*3]a "securitysweep"[FN*] of the houseand eventually called the police. The victim confirmed that he had not given anyone permissionto enter the home and had locked the doors before going to bed.
As to the physical evidence, Vincent M. Boyd, a forensic investigator with the State Police,responded to the residence around 10:35 a.m. for the purpose of collecting DNA samples. Boydlocated blood on the frame of the exterior door to the screened-in porch and a vertical rip in thescreen of the door. Moreover, he located two "cut marks" in the screen of the same interiorwindow where the arrow had passed through—between the porch and familyroom—as well as blood on the screen and a bent window frame. According to Boyd, it"appeared as though the window itself had been pried in an attempt to remove it." He alsonoticed a round hole in this window, positing that the hole was created by the arrow having beenshot through it, which, in his estimation, had travelled "15 feet across the room" and "embeddeditself into th[e] [living room] wall" 51 inches off of the ground. Boyd also found an axe under thesteps to the entrance of the porch, which had blood stains on it. Although no fingerprint evidencewas found on the axe, defendant's DNA was located on it, as well as in the blood on the exteriordoor frame to the porch. Brian Lasowski, an investigator who responded to the residence after theincident, examined the basement and noted that the basement window had been broken. Heobserved broken glass and what appeared to be blood on tiles that had fallen from the basementceiling, which also contained defendant's DNA.
Jan Anthony, a police investigator, explained that he responded to a residence nearby thevictim's home on the evening of February 28, 2018 after a crossbow had been located in awooded area between the driveway and the road. The crossbow was "loaded and cocked" whenAnthony arrived and a backpack was also located in the area, which contained packaging for atelephone SIM card, as well as a towel, a couple of packages of crossbow bolts and a containerthat had yellow liquid in it. Police obtained a subpoena for the subscriber information associatedwith the SIM card, confirming that defendant's name was listed as an authorized user on theaccount. Defendant's DNA was also found in blood that was located on the trigger guard area ofthe crossbow. Finally, the People presented evidence that the type of crossbow at issue wasdesigned for hunting large game, 150 pounds of pressure would need to be exerted on the stringto fire it and the arrow would leave the crossbow at a speed of approximately 215 feet persecond.
Defendant's contention that the screened-in porch was not part of the dwelling for purposesof a burglary conviction implicates a legal question that is more appropriately raised in thecontext of a legal sufficiency argument (see People v Rivera, 301 AD2d 787, 788 [2003],lv denied 99 NY2d 631 [2003]). As defendant did [*4]notmove to dismiss the indictment on this ground following the close of the People's proof, thisargument is unpreserved (see id.). In any event, it plainly lacks merit, as this Court haspreviously recognized that a screened-in porch is part of the dwelling to which it is attached forpurposes of a burglary conviction and the testimony in this case makes clear that the victim andhis family used the area for residential purposes (see id.; see also People vMcCrea, 194 AD2d 742, 743 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 756 [1993]; People vLewoc, 101 AD2d 927, 928 [1984]). Given that defendant's blood was located in this areaand the victim testified that he had not authorized anyone to enter on the evening in question, thePeople proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully entered a dwelling withoutpermission.
For purposes of burglary, the proof of unlawful entry into a dwelling is separate and distinctfrom the element of acting with a contemporaneous intent to commit a crime inside. The furtherquestion is whether the People established defendant's intent to commit a crime at the time ofentry (see People v Gaines, 74 NY2d 358, 363 [1989]). The People maintain thatdefendant entered the porch with the intent to shoot the arrow from that location into the familyroom and that he did, in fact, do so. There was ample evidence that the crossbow was "used" in amanner that was readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury insofar as it was firedat head level into a residential living area while the victim and his family were at home. Thephotographic and testimonial evidence demonstrated that a crossbow arrow passed through theinterior window between the porch and family room. As to whether the shot was taken frominside the porch area itself, we recognize that there was no direct testimony to that effect. Therecord does, however, include an exterior photograph of the porch. Upon examining thisphotograph, we conclude that a jury could rationally conclude that there were no holes in thescreens facing out from the back of the house—a conclusion that would necessarily meanthat defendant fired the shot from inside the porch. We are mindful that the record includes aclose-up photograph depicting the exterior door to the porch that reveals a tear in the screen, butthere is no proof that this door lines up with the damaged interior window, and the photographsin evidence suggest otherwise. Given the above, we conclude that the burglary conviction issupported by the weight of the evidence.
Defendant further contends that the 20-year sentence for the burglary conviction was harshand excessive. Burglary in the first degree is a class B violent felony (see Penal Law§ 140.30), punishable by a determinate prison term between 5 and 25 years(see Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [a]). Thus, the sentence was within thepermissible sentencing range. That said, we are troubled by comments that the trial judge made[*5]about his own personal "experience being the victim of aburglary" on two occasions. While the judge quickly added that he would not let that personalexperience interfere with his judicial obligations, his ensuing remarks include vindictivecommentary revealing that he over-personalized this case. A court's actual role in determining anappropriate sentence is " 'to weigh and consider societal protection, rehabilitation anddeterrence, as well as the circumstances that gave rise to the conviction' " (People v Johnson, 197 AD3d 61,72 [2021], quoting People v Lanfair,18 AD3d 1032, 1034 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 790 [2005]). Although we agreewith County Court that defendant's underlying actions were extremely dangerous and warrant asignificant prison term, under the circumstances, we have determined to reduce the prison termon the burglary conviction, in the interest of justice, to 12 years.
Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment ismodified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed ondefendant's conviction of burglary in the first degree under count 1 of the indictment; defendantis sentenced to a prison term of 12 years on said conviction; and, as so modified, affirmed.
Footnote *:At the time of the incident, thevictim was a federal agent.