People v. YoungPeople v. Young
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In July 2014, Rehabilitation Support Sеrvices (hereinafter RSS), a business located in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, reported a burglary to the City of Schenectady Police Department. The suspect stole $40 in petty cash and caused property damage to exterior and interior doors in the amount of $5,172.05. During the resulting police investigation, blood evidence was discovered on one of the damaged doors and sample swabs were collected and sent for DNA analysis. Defendant, who worked for RSS in July 2014, was arrested for the RSS burglary in March 2015. After testifying before a grand jury, defendant was charged by indictment with one count each of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the second degreе and petit larceny. In November 2015, a jury convicted defendant of all three counts and defendant now appeals. At trial, defendant did not dispute the presence of his blood on the damaged door, but explained thаt the blood must have transferred there when, after being injured at work, he entered the room to get a bandage.
Initially, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Where, as here, a different verdict would not hаve 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 testimony” to determine whether the jury gave “the
At trial, the project manager at RSS testified that petty cash was kept locked in a desk drawer in an office that he shared with another emplоyee who was a supervisor at RSS (hereinafter the supervisor). The supervisor testified that on July 1, 2014, he worked from 6:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and defendant worked from 7:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The supervisor recalled that he was the last person to leаve the building; he turned off the lights and locked the office door, and there was nothing remarkable or abnormal about the condition of his office doorway before he left the building. The next morning, when the supervisor arrived at 5:00 a.m., the building was dark but, when he turned on the lights and began to walk towards the office, he noticed that the door was open. Concerned that someone might still be in the building, he left and contacted the police. The supervisor testified that he later discovered that the office door was broken, there were red smudges in the doorway, the desk drawer was pried open and there was change strewn across the project manager‘s desk. The project manager testified that when he arrived at work after learning about the break-in, he discovered that approximately $40 was missing from his desk drawer. Further, the project manager testified that the amount to repair the property damaged during the break-in totaled $5,172.05.
The People submitted video images captured by a security camera located across the street from RSS and four cameras located at RSS. Both the supervisor and the project manager testified that they reviewed the footage with the police and concluded that the individual depicted on the video prying open the door to RSS resembled defendant and four other RSS employees. A police officer testified that when he arrived at RSS the morning of the break-in, he noticed what he believed to be blood on the doorway; he swabbed the substance and placed it with the evidence collеcted at the scene. A forensic scientist confirmed that the substance was blood and that it was sent for entry into the Combined DNA Index System. The testimony and evidence established that defendant‘s DNA matched the blood sample taken from the doorway at RSS after the break-in. Defendant testified that his blood may have transferred to the doorway because he cut his hand and he went into the office to get a bandage, but there was no evidence to dоcument such an injury. In our view, “an acquittal would not have been unreasonable” (People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). When we give the requisite deference to the jury‘s ability to observe the witnesses (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]), our independent review of the evidence in a neutral light leads us tо conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Morrison, 127 AD3d 1341, 1343 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 932 [2015]).
Next, defendant claims that County Court should have stricken testimony by an investigator with the Schenectady Police Department that defendant may have intentionally misstated his name when he provided the DNA sample via buccal swab to the investigator. Indisputably, the container where the swab was placed was labeled “John T. Kelley” not “John T. Young.” The investigator‘s testimony established thаt this container was immediately placed into a larger box that was labeled with defendant‘s correct name and date of birth. With the exception of defendant‘s last name, the first container was labeled with the same identifying information as
Next, defendant contends that County Court should not have granted the People‘s motion to compel the production of a DNA sample via a buccal swab test because it was made more than 45 days after defendant‘s arraignment (see
Defendant next argues that County Court failed to properly evaluate whether a juror was “grossly unqualified” (
In our view, defendant received the effective assistance of counsel. The standard under the NY Constitution — which is more stringent than the federal standard — requires defendant to establish that trial counsel “failed to provide meaningful representation and thus deprived defendant of a fair trial” (People v Clark, 28 NY3d 556, 562, 565 [2016]). “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim will fail so long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that [the] attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Rosario, 157 AD3d 988, 993 [2018]
Defendant‘s claim is based on trial counsel‘s failure to рreserve certain arguments and the decision to call a witness who, in defendant‘s view, offered no productive testimony on his behalf. Although arguably, with hindsight, one could conclude that trial counsel could have been more еffective, this is not the standard (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Bullock, 145 AD3d 1104, 1107 [2016]). Rather, when we review the record as a whole, we find that trial counsel had a “reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented,” and we therefоre conclude that defendant has not established that he received ineffective assistance (People v Perry, 148 AD3d 1224, 1224-1225 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]).
Finally, we reject defendant‘s claims that County Court abused its discretion by failing to allow him to participate in the judicial diversion program and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. First, because defendant never requested to participate in judicial diversion, he may not now fault the court for failing to exercise its discrеtionary authority to permit such participation (see
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.