Opinion
2013-11-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Vernon L. CARTER, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered May 21, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree. Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Vernon L. Carter, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered May 21, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Vernon L. Carter, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ). County Court properly denied defendant's request to charge criminal trespass in the second degree (§ 140.15[1] ) as a lesser included offense of burglary in the second degree because “[t]here is no reasonable view of the evidence that defendant entered the building without the intent to commit a crime therein” ( People v. Smith, 12 A.D.3d 1106, 1107, 784 N.Y.S.2d 810,lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 767, 792 N.Y.S.2d 11, 825 N.E.2d 143;see People v. Rickett, 94 N.Y.2d 929, 930, 708 N.Y.S.2d 349, 729 N.E.2d 1148). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). To the contrary, “[t]he overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the [verdict convicting defendant] of burglary in the second degree” ( People v. Moore, 190 A.D.2d 1023, 1023, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1004,lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1077, 601 N.Y.S.2d 596, 619 N.E.2d 674). We have considered defendant's contentions in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.
*834It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.