People v. Montgomery

215 N.Y.S.3d 198

229 A.D.3d 899

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Daquin MONTGOMERY, Appellant.

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

Calendar Date: May 31, 2024

Decided and Entered: July 11, 2024

Stephen W. Herrick, Public Defender, Albany (James A. Bartosik Jr. of counsel), for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Fisher and Mackey, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mackey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (William A. Carter, J.), rendered November 14, 2019, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and burglary in the first degree (two counts).

On October 8, 2018, law enforcement officials were dispatched to an apartment building located at 527 Washington Avenue in the City of Albany after receiving a call about an armed robbery that had taken place. There were six victims who reported that three men committed the robbery. While the victims were speaking to the police, an employee at the Capital Region Crime Analysis Center ran a global positioning system (hereinafter GPS) search to see if any paroled individuals were in the area of 527 Washington Avenue when the robbery occurred. The search involved checking the GPS locations of parolees’ ankle monitoring bracelets, which the Crime Analysis Center had access to through the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. That search linked defendant to the time and area of the robbery and revealed that he had since returned to his address at 230 Green Street. This information was relayed to law enforcement officials on the scene, who went to defendant’s address and took him into custody.

Defendant was taken to the police station where he was interviewed about his involvement with the robbery. During the interview, a gold chain and watch were collected from defendant and later confirmed to be property stolen from the victims of the robbery. Law enforcement officials then obtained and executed a search warrant for defendant’s apartment, where they recovered defendant’s cell phone and a ski mask. Defendant and his codefendant, Marcelle Chandler, were jointly indicted and charged with four counts of robbery in the first degree (see Penal Law § 160.15[4]) and two counts of burglary in the first degree (see Penal Law § 140.30[4]). The codefendant pleaded guilty, while defendant rejected a similar plea offer. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his arrest, statements he made to the police and evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant. After a suppression hearing, County Court ruled that none of the evidence would be suppressed at trial. After a four-day jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged. Defendant was then sentenced, as a second violent felony offender, to six concurrent prison terms of 25 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

[1–3] Defendant contends that the verdict is based on evidence that is legally insufficient and the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because the People did not establish his identity as one of the perpetrators. "In conducting a legal sufficiency analysis, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and evaluates whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial and as a matter of law satisfy the proof and burden requirements for every element of the crimes charged" (People v. Lall, 223 A.D.3d 1098, 1100, 204 N.Y.S.3d 304 [3d Dept. 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 984, 210 N.Y.S.3d 735, 234 N.E.3d 351 [2024]; see People v. Agan, 207 A.D.3d 861, 862, 172 N.Y.S.3d 177 [3d Dept. 2022], lvs denied 38 N.Y.3d 1186, 176 N.Y.S.3d 213, 197 N.E.3d 493 [2022], 39 N.Y.3d 939, 177 N.Y.S.3d 542, 198 N.E.3d 785 [2022]; People v. Warner, 194 A.D.3d 1098, 1099, 147 N.Y.S.3d 234 [3d Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1030, 153 N.Y.S.3d 412, 175 N.E.3d 438 [2021]). "When undertaking a weight of the evidence review, this Court must first determine whether, based on all the credible evidence, a different finding would not have been unreasonable and, if not, then it must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence. When conducting this review, this Court considers the evidence in a neutral light and defers to the jury’s credibility assessments" (People v. Moore, 223 A.D.3d 1085, 1086–1087, 204 N.Y.S.3d 285 [3d Dept. 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 1003, 213 N.Y.S.3d 250, 236 N.E.3d 1268 [May 31, 2024]; see People v. Oates, 222 A.D.3d 1271, 1272, 202 N.Y.S.3d 555 [3d Dept. 2023]; People v. Munise, 222 A.D.3d 1183, 1184, 201 N.Y.S.3d 800 [3d Dept. 2023]).

[4] As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he [or she] forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he [or she] or another participant in the crime … [displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm" (Penal Law § 160.15[4]; see People v. Shabazz, 211 A.D.3d 1093, 1095, 178 N.Y.S.3d 820 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1113, 186 N.Y.S.3d 835, 208 N.E.3d 63 [2023]; People v. Gilley, 163 A.D.3d 1156, 1157, 80 N.Y.S.3d 554 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 948, 100 N.Y.S.3d 198, 123 N.E.3d 857 [2019]). "A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he [or she] knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein, and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, he [or she] or another participant in the crime … [displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm" (Penal Law § 140.30[4]; see People v. Shabazz, 211 A.D.3d at 1095, 178 N.Y.S.3d 820; People v. Willard, 159 A.D.3d 1228, 1229, 73 N.Y.S.3d 281 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 1154, 83 N.Y.S.3d 436, 108 N.E.3d 510 [2018]). "As an implicit but necessary element of each and every crime, the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the defendant as the person who committed the crime" (People v. Jones, 221 A.D.3d 1285, 1288, 200 N.Y.S.3d 532 [3d Dept. 2023] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v. Scott, 219 A.D.3d 1572, 1573–1574, 197 N.Y.S.3d 343 [3d Dept. 2023]; People v. Davis, 200 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 157 N.Y.S.3d 580 [3d Dept. 2021]).

[5] Six victims, all of whom were college students at the time, testified at trial about their experiences during the robbery. Five of them were roommates and residents of 527 Washington Avenue and one was a friend who was visiting at the time. The apartment consisted of two stories. Four of the victims were playing video games together in one of the downstairs bedrooms while a fifth victim was in his upstairs bedroom alone. The sixth victim was not home at the time of the robbery, but testified at trial about his belongings that were stolen. The four individuals in the downstairs bedroom were Ruben Raju, Joshua Rayappa, Timothy Koki and Hochy Rodriguez.

Each of them testified that at approximately 8:00 p.m., three men came into the bedroom holding firearms. After ordering everyone to the ground, the men asked the victims for their marihuana and stole a necklace chain from Raju. Two of the men then took Rodriquez upstairs at gunpoint while the third man stayed in the bedroom with the rest of the victims. Once upstairs, the men took Rodriguez into his bedroom and stole some of his personal belongings, including his laptop, sneakers and $350. The men then forced Rodriguez to lie on the floor while they went through the other upstairs bedrooms. While searching the other upstairs bedrooms, the men discovered Lexus Abreu, the roommate who had been upstairs in his bedroom while the others played video games. The men then forced Abreu to lie on the floor and stole his cell phone. Rodriguez and Abreu continued to lie on the floor upstairs while the two men returned to the downstairs bedroom, where they stole a laptop, video games and the other victims’ cell phones. After gathering the personal belongings in a trash bag, all three men left the building. According to the victims’ testimony, the entire robbery lasted somewhere between 10 and 30 minutes. After the men left, Raju, the only victim whose phone was not stolen, sent a text message to his girlfriend and asked her to call the police, who arrived approximately 10 minutes later.

After learning that the police had been dispatched to respond to a robbery, Andrew Munson, a senior crime analyst with the Capital Region Crime Analysis Center, checked GPS data for ankle monitoring sites in the area and learned that defendant’s ankle monitor was near the scene of the crime while the robbery was taking place.¹ An employee at Securus, the company that operates the GPS system that the ankle monitor uses, provided testimony about that system, which is called Veritracks. The employee stated that Veritracks GPS information is accurate within about 50 feet and that the ankle monitor attempts to collect a GPS point every minute. Munson testified that the GPS data reflected that defendant arrived in the area of 527 Washington Avenue at 7:42 p.m. and stayed for approximately 15 minutes. He then traveled to 615 Myrtle Avenue, an address associated with the codefendant. After about five minutes, defendant returned to 527 Washington Avenue, where he stayed until about 8:30...