THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Rеspondent, v JOSEPH RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York
[890 NYS2d 735]
Peters, J.
On June 12, 2007, defendant and codefendant Jack Vincent Johnson were arrested when Kahlil Williams reported that they had threatened him with a knife after he failed to pay a drug debt owed to Johnson. At that time, Williams also infоrmed police that, two weeks earlier, defendant and Johnson had committed a burglary at the аpartment that Williams shared with his girlfriend, Nancy Hunsinger. Defendant was thereafter indicted with burglary in the second dеgree and, by separate indictment, with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree аnd menacing in the second degree. On the People‘s motion, and over defendant‘s objectiоn, County Court consolidated the indictments. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, but acquitted of the weapon possession and menacing charges.
Defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his burglary conviction, arguing that thе People failed to prove that he intended to commit a crime at the time authorizatiоn to be in Hunsinger‘s apartment was revoked. A
Here, Hunsinger testified that defendant and Johnson aрpeared at her door looking for Williams. After informing them that Williams was not home, she permitted them tо enter her apartment to talk. Once inside, Johnson stated that Williams owed him money and that he was going to take Hunsinger‘s property until he was repaid. Hunsinger then instructed defendant and Johnson to leavе, but the two instead proceeded to remove property from the apartment and plаce it into a large truck. Defendant‘s assertion that he was unaware of Johnson‘s intent to take Hunsinger‘s property until the time when the property was actually taken is contradicted by the recоrd, as the evidence established that he was present when Johnson informed Hunsinger of his intent to take her property and when Hunsinger requested that the two leave. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the People, we find a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could leаd the jury to conclude that defendant harbored the intent to commit a crime at the time he was told to leave and failed to do so (see People v Gaines, 74 NY2d at 363; compare People v Green, 24 AD3d at 18-19; People v Konikov, 160 AD2d 146, 152-154 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 941 [1990]).
Nor are we persuaded that defendant‘s conviction is against the weight of the evidence. Where, as here, a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we “must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimоny” (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). Although Hunsinger did not immediately report the burglary and also signed a written statement that no burglary had occurred, she explained that Williams told her that he would take care of the situation, causing her to forgo reporting the offense, and that she signed the statement after being informed by Johnson‘s
Finally, we rеject defendant‘s contention that County Court erred in consolidating the two indictments. It is within the trial court‘s discretion to join multiple offenses, “even though based on separate and distinct criminal transactions, . . . if they are of such a nature that proof of either offense would be material and admissiblе as evidence-in-chief upon the trial of the other” (People v Bongarzone, 69 NY2d 892, 895 [1987]; see
Cardona, P.J., Kane, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.