People v. Rodriguez, 153 A.D.3d 235

Victim returned to her apartment after a trip and discovered a burglary; a pair of wire cutters was found in her living-room couch though the tool had been stored on her rooftop deck.
Police vouchered the wire cutters for DNA testing; OCME developed a DNA profile from the cutters (Male Donor A) and later matched it to defendant after a CODIS/LDIS hit and buccal swab testing.
At trial OCME criminalist Melissa Huyck testified, reviewed raw data and concluded the profiles matched; three OCME lab reports and associated raw data pages were admitted into evidence.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree burglary and later pleaded guilty to multiple counts in a separate indictment; sentencing produced lengthy prison terms (20-to-life and an aggregate 25-to-life concurrent).
On appeal defendant challenged (1) legal sufficiency/weight of the evidence, (2) Confrontation Clause admission of DNA reports/testimony by a non-testing analyst, (3) voluntariness of his guilty plea (alleged promise of concurrent sentences), and (4) excessiveness of sentences.

Issue	People's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency / weight of evidence	DNA match to wire cutters and context sufficiently link defendant to burglary	DNA-only evidence unreliable or insufficient	Affirmed: DNA evidence legally sufficient and not against weight of evidence
Confrontation Clause admissibility of OCME reports/testimony	Huyck independently reviewed raw data, drew her own conclusions, and reports were properly limited to raw data; testimonial report prepared by Huyck was admissible because she testified	Admission violated Sixth Amendment because non‑testing analysts who generated profiles did not testify; Huyck acted as surrogate witness (per People v John)	Claim unpreserved; Court declines interest‑of‑justice review and alternatively rejects on merits: two OCME reports nontestimonial; the match report was testimonial but admissible because Huyck authored it and was cross‑examined
Plea withdrawal based on promise of concurrent sentences	No promise induced plea; concurrent sentence claim depends on vacatur of trial conviction which was denied	Guilty plea induced by promise that sentences would run concurrently with burglary sentence	Denied: plea stands because burglary conviction affirmed and defendant's alternative claim fails
Excessive sentence	Sentences appropriate given seriousness and record	Sentences excessive; mitigating factors warrant reduction	Denied: sentences not excessive; affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (recognition of confrontation right for testimonial statements)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (testimonial forensic reports require live testimony from analyst unless unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose test for determining testimonial statements)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (plurality and concurrence on expert testimony and out‑of‑court lab reports)
People v. John, 27 N.Y.3d 294 (N.Y. Court of Appeals on limits of surrogate testimony by reviewing criminalist)
People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447 (adoption of a multi‑factor primary‑purpose test for lab reports)
People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332 (distinguishing raw machine data from testimonial lab conclusions)
People v. Rawlins, 10 N.Y.3d 136 (discussion of DNA profile editing and machine‑generated data)
People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 (standards for legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence)