Opinion
1415 KA 11-02499.
12-31-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jerrod A. PUGH, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, The Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Leah R. Mervine of Counsel), for Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.033 ). The charges arose from an incident in which defendant and an accomplice entered a nail salon wearing black masks, and the accomplice pointed a gun at the salon owner's head while defendant guarded the door and prevented the occupants from escaping. Almost immediately after they entered the salon, the shop owner disarmed the accomplice, and defendant and the accomplice fled. It was undisputed at trial that defendant never handled the weapon.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as there is a “valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial” (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). We conclude that the jury reasonably could have found “ ‘that defendant, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission of the crime, intentionally aid [ed] another in the conduct constituting the offense’ ” (People v. Trinidad, 107 A.D.3d 1432, 1433, 966 N.Y.S.2d 631, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 1046, 972 N.Y.S.2d 544, 995 N.E.2d 860; see Penal Law § 20.00; People v. Witherspoon, 300 A.D.2d 605, 605, 753 N.Y.S.2d 88, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 634, 760 N.Y.S.2d 116, 790 N.E.2d 290). We further conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that defendant jointly possessed the accomplice's loaded firearm (see People v. Velasquez, 44 A.D.3d 412, 412, 843 N.Y.S.2d 253, lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 1040, 852 N.Y.S.2d 25, 881 N.E.2d 1212).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none requires modification or reversal of the judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, and CARNI, JJ., concur.