Opinion
9579 Ind. 6170/09
06-11-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bartholomew CRAWFORD, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Ben A. Schatz of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Aaron Zucker of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Ben A. Schatz of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Aaron Zucker of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gesmer, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 6, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–49, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). It is undisputed that defendant's DNA was on the stockings used by the burglar to tie up his victim, and that the only DNA found on the stockings came from defendant and the victim. There is no rational innocent explanation for the presence of defendant's DNA. Defendant's farfetched theory that he might have had contact with these stockings on some past occasion, and that another person somehow acquired them and brought them with him when he committed the burglary, rests entirely on speculation (see e.g. People v. McKenzie, 2 A.D.3d 348, 768 N.Y.S.2d 816 [2003], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 764, 778 N.Y.S.2d 782, 811 N.E.2d 44 [2004] ; People v. Steele, 287 A.D.2d 321, 322, 731 N.Y.S.2d 685 [2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 682, 738 N.Y.S.2d 297, 764 N.E.2d 401 [2001] ; Taylor v. Stainer, 31 F.3d 907, 910 [9th Cir.1994] ). Moreover, the evidence supported the inference that the burglar took the stockings from the victim's drawer, even though the victim could not actually "identify" the particular stockings. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments on this issue.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.