Opinion
1281 KA 18–00170
01-31-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Shevockie BLOODWORTH, Defendant–Appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (KENNETH H. TYLER, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
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 jury verdict of robbery in the first degree ( Penal Law § 160.15[4] ), we reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a black knit hat and a blue latex glove. Insofar as defendant contends that the items should have been excluded as irrelevant because the People failed to establish their connection to the robbery, we conclude that the court did not err in admitting the evidence inasmuch as the connection between the items and the robbery was "not so tenuous as to be improbable" ( People v. Flowers , 166 A.D.3d 1492, 1495, 87 N.Y.S.3d 425 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1125, 93 N.Y.S.3d 263, 117 N.E.3d 822 [2018] ; see People v. Mirenda , 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453–454, 297 N.Y.S.2d 532, 245 N.E.2d 194 [1969] ; People v. Dasch , 79 A.D.2d 877, 878, 434 N.Y.S.2d 542 [4th Dept. 1980] ). Security camera footage of the robbery depicted one of the robbers wearing a dark colored hat and a blue glove, on the night of the crime police recovered a black knit hat and a blue latex glove a short distance from the scene of the robbery, and defendant's DNA was found on both items. Defendant's further contention that the People failed to lay an adequate foundation for admission of the hat and the glove is not preserved for our review (see People v. Gray , 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995] ; People v. Davidson , 111 A.D.3d 848, 848, 975 N.Y.S.2d 128 [2d Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1087, 981 N.Y.S.2d 673, 4 N.E.3d 975 [2014] ) and, in any event, lacks merit (see generally People v. Moyer , 186 A.D.2d 997, 997–998, 588 N.Y.S.2d 457 [4th Dept. 1992], lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 844, 595 N.Y.S.2d 743, 611 N.E.2d 782 [1993] ).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we likewise reject defendant's contention that the verdict 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 [1987] ; People v. Pandajis , 147 A.D.3d 1469, 1470–1471, 47 N.Y.S.3d 588 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1084, 64 N.Y.S.3d 174, 86 N.E.3d 261 [2017] ). Security camera footage depicted the individual alleged to be defendant taking money from a cash register with his left hand while wearing a navy blue winter jacket, a dark winter hat, a blue glove, and a mask. A navy blue jacket, a black knit hat, and a blue latex glove were thereafter recovered near the crime scene, and each was connected to defendant through DNA evidence. Further, defendant's ex-wife testified that the mask depicted in the security footage looked similar to one that she and defendant purchased together, that defendant had access to blue latex gloves at the time of the robbery, and that defendant had limited use of his right hand.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was penalized for exercising his right to a trial (see People v. Hurley , 75 N.Y.2d 887, 888, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 553 N.E.2d 1017 [1990] ; People v. Williams , 125 A.D.3d 1300, 1302, 2 N.Y.S.3d 708 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 937, 17 N.Y.S.3d 100, 38 N.E.3d 846 [2015] ). We reject defendant's contention that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe.