PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ (2000)

 Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[3]), petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree (Penal Law § 165.08).   He contends that the burglary conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that he intended to commit a crime within the dwelling of the victim.   We disagree.   Intent may be inferred from the circumstances of the entry (see, People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358, 362, n. 1, 547 N.Y.S.2d 620, 546 N.E.2d 913;  People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 381, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071).   We reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because he established that he was too intoxicated to form the intent to commit a crime.   The conflicting testimony concerning the extent of defendant's intoxication presented a credibility issue for the jury (see, People v. Jackson, 269 A.D.2d 867, 703 N.Y.S.2d 804, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 798, 711 N.Y.S.2d 166, 733 N.E.2d 238;  People v. Abdul-Malik, 156 A.D.2d 1023, 549 N.Y.S.2d 304, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 866, 553 N.Y.S.2d 298, 552 N.E.2d 877).

 The showup identification held at the crime scene within 25 minutes of the burglary was permissible in the interest of prompt identification (see, People v. Duuvon, 77 N.Y.2d 541, 545, 569 N.Y.S.2d 346, 571 N.E.2d 654;  People v. Jolley, 270 A.D.2d 955, 705 N.Y.S.2d 305, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 854, 714 N.Y.S.2d 5, 736 N.E.2d 866;  People v. Lockwood, 270 A.D.2d 848, 849, 705 N.Y.S.2d 767, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 949, 710 N.Y.S.2d 6, 731 N.E.2d 623).   The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: