THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. TRAVIS MARTIN DEFENDANT APPELLANT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. TRAVIS MARTIN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

KA 12–02178

Decided: November 21, 2014

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KRISTIN M. PREVE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum:  On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15[1] ), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence based on his assertion that he had permission to enter the victim's apartment.   We reject those contentions.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).   The victim and her daughter both testified that defendant and the victim had broken up several weeks prior to the incident and that defendant did not have permission to enter the apartment on the date at issue.   Further, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495).   Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable (see Danielson, 9 NY3d at 348), we conclude that, “[b]ased on the weight of the credible evidence, [Supreme C]ourt ․ was justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” (id.;   see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 642–643).  “ ‘Great deference is to be accorded to the [factfinder]'s resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony’ “ (People v. Gritzke, 292 A.D.2d 805, 805–806, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 697), and we perceive no reason to disturb the court's credibility determinations.

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court