From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Simoens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 22, 1990
159 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 22, 1990

Appeal from the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.).


Police responded to a report of a burglary in progress during the early hours of August 12, 1988 by taking positions around the subject office building at 350 West Church Street in the City of Elmira, Chemung County. Officer Patrick Sullivan took the southeast corner of the building where he could observe the front and the side while Officer William Wood took the rear. Officer Peter Kramer thereafter arrived and, after observing no one in the recessed front doorway, took up a position at the southwest corner where he could observe that side as well as the front. Shortly thereafter both Sullivan and Kramer heard the sound of the crash bar on the front door and observed defendant exiting from the recessed doorway. Defendant was quickly apprehended in front of the building. Defendant waived a jury and, following an unsuccessful motion to disqualify the Trial Judge, was convicted upon a bench trial and sentenced as a predicate felony offender to a prison term of 3 to 6 years. This appeal followed.

We cannot agree with defendant's first contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish guilt. On an appeal from a verdict of guilty, the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the People and it must be presumed that the court credited the People's witnesses (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932; People v Lyng, 154 A.D.2d 787, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 950; People v Scallero, 122 A.D.2d 350). Our review of the record shows that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the finding of guilt and provides no basis to believe that County Court failed to properly weigh that evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, revg 125 A.D.2d 687). The People established that the premises were closed and defendant had no authority to be in the building. An individual had been observed from afar breaking a window and entering the building through that broken window about 30 minutes prior to defendant's apprehension while fleeing from the premises. Offices had been ransacked and no one else was found in the building or in the area. The police had checked the recessed doorway from which defendant emerged, found it empty and placed it under surveillance. While a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence may be sustained only if the hypothesis of guilt naturally flows therefrom and excludes to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (People v Davis, 41 N.Y.2d 678), this conviction clearly meets the standard.

Defendant next contends that the Trial Judge's refusal to voluntarily disqualify himself when considered in conjunction with his waiver of a jury trial was error. Defendant's recusal motion on two days' notice was returnable on Friday before the scheduled commencement of the trial on the following Monday. The Judge had participated in pretrial adjudicatory functions and was aware of defense counsel's inquiry with regard to the possible sentence upon a guilty plea. However, both the waiver of a jury trial and election to proceed with a bench trial were made with full knowledge that the Judge refused to recuse himself. We do not find any exceptional circumstances (see, People v Zappacosta, 77 A.D.2d 928) suggesting an abuse of discretion (see, People v Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403).

Equally unavailing is defendant's remaining contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive. The sentence of 3 to 6 years was less than the possible maximum. Defendant has a prior criminal history in addition to his predicate felony conviction. This court has consistently left undisturbed the exercise of discretion by the sentencing court absent extraordinary circumstances, not here found present (see, People v Thiessen, 158 A.D.2d 737; People v Donnelly, 103 A.D.2d 941).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Simoens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 22, 1990
159 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Simoens

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DONALD SIMOENS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 22, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 976

Citing Cases

People v. Zeoli

Furthermore, the transcript of the plea proceeding, though seemingly essential to defendant's case, is…

People v. Washington

Finally, we reject defendant's argument that his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice…