People v. Maldonado
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Maldonado
2026 NY Slip Op 04516
July 22, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
David Maldonado, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 22, 2026
2019-12273, (Ind. No. 220/17)
Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.
Helen Voutsinas
Donna-Marie E. Golia
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Chelsea Lopez and Kathleen Whooley of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky, Morrie I. Kleinbart, and Rhys Johnson of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), rendered October 10, 2019, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
For his actions of breaking into and entering a home in which he did not have the permission or authority to enter, remaining therein, and possessing a weapon, the defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and related crimes.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court's admission into evidence of certain items that did not belong to the homeowner, including women's jewelry, sunglasses, and a watch, was erroneous pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264, 293) (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Jones, 179 AD3d 948, 950). However, the defendant correctly contends that the court erred in admitting evidence of the sunglasses and various pieces of jewelry on the ground that it was unduly prejudicial. These items were recovered near other items whose admission the defendant did not challenge, there was no evidence connecting the sunglasses and jewelry to the burglary charged in the instant indictment, and the evidence carried with it the implication that the defendant had obtained it through some other illegal activity (see People v Reddick, 107 AD2d 721, 722; see also People v Lunsford, 244 AD2d 507, 507-508). Nevertheless, any error in the admission of this evidence was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; People v Francois, 16 AD3d 699, 699).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim of ineffective assistance" (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance [*2]of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v Freeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109).
Moreover, to the extent the defendant contends, in his pro se supplemental brief, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). To the extent the defendant contends, in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court's sentence impermissibly penalized him for exercising his right to trial, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887, 888) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 412; People v Parker, 180 AD3d 1072, 1073; People v Croom, 171 AD3d 781, 784; People v Seymore, 106 AD3d 1033, 1034).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
CONNOLLY, J.P., VOUTSINAS, GOLIA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Maldonado (People v. Maldonado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.