PEOPLE v. HODGINS (2000)

 We reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25[2] ). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the entry by defendant into his cousin's cabin was unlawful (see, People v. Barnes, 210 A.D.2d 491, 620 N.Y.S.2d 476, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 906, 627 N.Y.S.2d 328, 650 N.E.2d 1330);  the cabin is a “dwelling” as defined in Penal Law § 140.00(3) (see, People v. Sheirod, 124 A.D.2d 14, 17-18, 510 N.Y.S.2d 945, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 656, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1050, 512 N.E.2d 576);  and defendant intended to commit a crime when he entered the cabin (see, People v. Mitchell, 254 A.D.2d 830, 831, 679 N.Y.S.2d 761, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 984, 683 N.Y.S.2d 765, 706 N.E.2d 753).   We also reject defendant's contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.05;  see, People v. Boyd, 122 A.D.2d 273, 275, 505 N.Y.S.2d 185).   County Court properly permitted the People to introduce expert testimony regarding learned helplessness syndrome and battered woman syndrome (see, People v. Hryckewicz, 221 A.D.2d 990, 990-991, 634 N.Y.S.2d 297, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 849, 644 N.Y.S.2d 695, 667 N.E.2d 345).   Defendant's contention that the court's burglary charge is erroneous is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ).   The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: