Opinion
2013-11-8
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eddie B. AVILEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered August 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree. Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered August 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James Eckert of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Matthew Dunham of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[1] ) in connection with the home invasion of his cousin's home. We reject defendant's contention that the testimony of the accomplice was not sufficiently corroborated and thus that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. Both the accomplice and the victim testified that defendant was inside the home when the accomplice entered and that the accomplice pointed what appeared to be a handgun at defendant while defendant told the victim to give the accomplice money. The accomplice's testimony that defendant had planned the crime was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the victim, who observed defendant talking with the accomplice outside the home prior to the crime ( see People v. Reome, 15 N.Y.3d 188, 191–192, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186), and by statements defendant made to his girlfriend in a recorded telephone conversation while he was incarcerated ( see People v. Mohamed, 94 A.D.3d 1462, 1463, 942 N.Y.S.2d 305,lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 999, 951 N.Y.S.2d 475, 975 N.E.2d 921,reconsideration denied20 N.Y.3d 934, 957 N.Y.S.2d 694, 981 N.E.2d 291). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.