Summary
affirming burglary conviction "in this wholly circumstantial evidence case" where evidence showed "entry into the burglarized dwellings was accomplished ... by forced entry through windows and ... the fingerprints found on or near the points of entry matched those of defendant"
Summary of this case from Livingston v. BrownOpinion
June 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in this wholly circumstantial evidence case in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495; People v Marin, 65 N.Y.2d 741, 742), and "to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis of innocence" (People v Vasquez, 131 A.D.2d 523; see also, People v Riddick, 130 A.D.2d 780). The trial evidence established that entry into the burglarized dwellings was accomplished in each case by forced entry through windows and that the fingerprints found on or near the points of entry matched those of defendant. There was no indication that the fingerprints were placed there innocently (see, People v Klein, 156 A.D.2d 385, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 920, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 L Ed 2d 86; People v Riddick, supra). The only explanation of the presence of defendant's fingerprints under such circumstances was that the prints were made by him in the process of gaining entry in order to burglarize the dwellings (see, People v Vasquez, supra).
We reject defendant's argument that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender (see, People v Gonzalez, 61 N.Y.2d 586, 589).