Opinion
September 17, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.).
In this trial for burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar's tools, the court's Sandoval ruling, permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about his 1983 conviction for second degree burglary and to elicit that he had been convicted of another felony as well, without inquiry into the facts underlying these convictions, was not an abuse of discretion (People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). This Court has consistently held that "[d]efendant's specialization in theft-related crimes does not insulate him from use of those crimes for impeachment purposes" (People v. Williams, 162 A.D.2d 309, 310, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 945). Nor was it error for Criminal Term to deny defendant's request to charge trespass as a lesser-included offense of burglary, since there was no reasonable view of the evidence from which the jury could have found him guilty of criminal trespass but not burglary (People v Atkinson, 154 A.D.2d 383, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 946).
Finally, there is no support for defendant's contentions that the sentencing court improperly disregarded defendant's prospects for rehabilitation in imposing sentence, or violated defendant's due process rights by considering defendant's unexplained possession of jewelry, at the time of his arrest, as evidence of guilt of uncharged crimes. (Compare, People v. Burgh, 89 A.D.2d 672; People v. Villanueva, 144 A.D.2d 285, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 897. )
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.