State v. Geanuracos

203 Conn.App. 359

248 A.3d 804

STATE of Connecticut

v.Derek GEANURACOS

AC 43565

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Submitted on briefs January 11, 2021

Officially released March 23, 2021

Joseph G. Bruckman, public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Alexandra Arroyo, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state's attorney, Melissa Patterson, senior assistant state's attorney, and Warren C. Murry, former supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Bright, C.J., and Cradle and Suarez, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Derek Geanuracos, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103 (a).¹ On appeal, the defendant argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We agree, and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In May, 2016, the defendant was involved in an intimate relationship with Marisa Vivaldi, whom he visited frequently at her home in Danbury. The defendant was not permitted to be in Vivaldi's home unless she or her children were present. On May 4, 2016, after the defendant drove Vivaldi home from a medical appointment, he was in her bedroom with her while she was removing jewelry that she had been wearing and putting it in her dresser. The defendant asked Vivaldi if all of her jewelry was made of gold. Vivaldi told the defendant that it was, and explained that it had either been gifted to her when she was a child, or she had inherited it from her mother.

On May 8, 2016, Vivaldi discovered that some of her jewelry was missing and she filed a police report. The investigating officers learned that the defendant had sold several pieces of Vivaldi's jewelry to CT Gold & Silver Brokers in New Milford for $724.75. When Vivaldi confronted the defendant, he admitted to stealing her jewelry, which Vivaldi valued at approximately $14,000, and apologized. He offered to reimburse her for a portion of the cost of the jewelry in exchange for her dropping the charges, but she declined.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (2) and burglary in the third degree in violation of § 53a-103 (a). The trial court sentenced him to identical, concurrent sentences on each conviction, resulting in a total effective sentence of five years of incarceration, execution suspended, followed by four years of probation. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his burglary conviction. "In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we apply a two part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .... This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. ...

"We note that the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense, [but] each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ... If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

"Review of any claim of insufficiency of the evidence introduced to prove a violation of a criminal statute must necessarily begin with the skeletal requirements of what necessary elements the charged statute requires to be proved. ... Once analysis is complete as to what the particular statute requires to be proved, we then review the evidence in light of those statutory requirements."

(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Marsan , 192 Conn. App. 49, 61–62, 216 A.3d 818, cert. denied, 333 Conn. 939, 218 A.3d 1049 (2019).

Section 53a-103 (a) provides: "A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree when he enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein." The defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he "enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully" in Vivaldi's home. On appeal, the state concedes that it did, in fact, fail to prove that requisite element of the defendant's burglary charge, and we agree.

"A person ‘enters or remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises when the premises, at the time of such entry or remaining, are not...