PEOPLE v. SCURLOCK (2006)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered March 31, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 1/212 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

 The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence.   Defendant's and his codefendant's recent and exclusive possession of the proceeds of the burglary, only a few hundred yards from the break-in, provided the jury with a proper basis from which to reasonably infer defendant's guilt (see People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 382, 469 N.Y.S.2d 646, 457 N.E.2d 752 [1983];  Knickerbocker v. People, 43 N.Y. 177, 181 [1870];  People v. Sim, 53 A.D.2d 992, 993, 386 N.Y.S.2d 114 [1976], affd. 44 N.Y.2d 758, 405 N.Y.S.2d 686, 376 N.E.2d 1331 [1978] ).   Although the precise time of the burglary could not be ascertained, the evidence supports the conclusion that it occurred shortly before defendant and codefendant were found with the proceeds.   Moreover, defendant had a bleeding gash on his leg, which was consistent with the broken window at the burglarized store.   Furthermore, there was nothing to support an inference that defendant and the codefendant merely found property that had been stolen and discarded by someone else (compare People v. Moore, 291 A.D.2d 336, 738 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2002] ).

 The court properly denied defendant's request to submit to the jury the issue of the voluntariness of his statements to police (see People v. Graham, 55 N.Y.2d 144, 447 N.Y.S.2d 918, 432 N.E.2d 790 [1982];  CPL 710.70[3] ).  “A Trial Judge is required to charge on voluntariness only if an issue has been raised at the trial by a proper objection, and evidence sufficient to raise a factual dispute has been adduced either by direct or cross-examination” (People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 288-289, 296 N.Y.S.2d 345, 244 N.E.2d 42 [1968] [emphasis in original];  see also People v. Silvagnoli, 251 A.D.2d 76, 674 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 882, 678 N.Y.S.2d 29, 700 N.E.2d 567 [1998];  People v. Taylor, 135 A.D.2d 202, 524 N.Y.S.2d 708 [1988], lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1034, 530 N.Y.S.2d 569, 526 N.E.2d 61 [1988] ).   The question of voluntariness, including any issues relating to the administration of Miranda warnings, was never litigated at trial.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.