PEOPLE v. HART (2006)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45[2] ) and petit larceny (§ 155.25).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).   We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict with respect to that count is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   The jury was entitled to infer from the circumstantial evidence presented by the People that defendant knowingly possessed stolen property for his own benefit (see generally People v. Radoncic, 239 A.D.2d 176, 179, 657 N.Y.S.2d 627, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 897, 662 N.Y.S.2d 440, 685 N.E.2d 221), and thus it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

 We reject defendant's further contention that County Court abused its discretion in failing to order, sua sponte, a CPL article 730 examination.   Defendant's past history of mental illness alone is not sufficient to trigger a CPL article 730 examination (see People v. Tortorici, 92 N.Y.2d 757, 765, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87, cert. denied 528 U.S. 834, 120 S.Ct. 94, 145 L.Ed.2d 80), and the record discloses no other triggering factors (see e.g. id. at 766-767, 686 N.Y.S.2d 346, 709 N.E.2d 87;  People v. Gelikkaya, 84 N.Y.2d 456, 459-460, 618 N.Y.S.2d 895, 643 N.E.2d 517;  People v. Graham, 272 A.D.2d 479, 708 N.Y.S.2d 336, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 865, 715 N.Y.S.2d 220, 738 N.E.2d 368).   Finally, we reject defendant's contention that reversal is required based on prosecutorial misconduct (cf. People v. Mott, 94 A.D.2d 415, 465 N.Y.S.2d 307;  see generally People v. Hackworth, 6 A.D.3d 1064, 775 N.Y.S.2d 623, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 675, 784 N.Y.S.2d 13, 817 N.E.2d 831).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: