People v. Ramirez

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: 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 NY2d 358 , 362, n 1; People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375 , 381). 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 AD2d 867 , lv denied 95 NY2d 798 ; People v Abdul-Malik, 156 AD2d 1023 , lv denied 75 NY2d 866 ).

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 NY2d 541 , 545; People v Jolley, 270 AD2d 955 , lv denied 95 NY2d 854 ; People v Lockwood, 270 AD2d 848 , 849, lv denied 94 NY2d 949 ). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.