Opinion
2012-05-1
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. John E. VANTASSEL, Jr., appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant. *887 William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant. *887 William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), both rendered February 19, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 52/08, and burglary in the second degree (nine counts) under Indictment No. 75/08, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902). The testimony of the defendant's accomplice was sufficiently corroborated by testimony identifying the vehicle used during each of the burglaries and by evidence that several of the items stolen during the burglaries were recovered in the defendant's home ( see CPL 60.22[1]; People v. Brown, 62 A.D.3d 1089, 1090–1091, 878 N.Y.S.2d 515; see also People v. Reome, 15 N.Y.3d 188, 191–192, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186; People v. Breland, 83 N.Y.2d 286, 292–294, 609 N.Y.S.2d 571, 631 N.E.2d 577; People v. Steinberg, 79 N.Y.2d 673, 683, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845; People v. Morales, 86 A.D.3d 147, 162, 924 N.Y.S.2d 62, lv. granted 17 N.Y.3d 904, 933 N.Y.S.2d 659, 957 N.E.2d 1163; People v. Delgado, 50 A.D.3d 915, 917, 855 N.Y.S.2d 253; People v. Montefusco, 44 A.D.3d 879, 880, 843 N.Y.S.2d 671).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in failing to provide the jury with a charge on accessorial liability is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Brown, 232 A.D.2d 750, 752, 649 N.Y.S.2d 51; People v. Graham, 122 A.D.2d 162, 504 N.Y.S.2d 705) and, in any event, is without merit.
The sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.