People v Camacho (Paulino)

[*1] People v Camacho (Paulino) 2017 NY Slip Op 51537(U) Decided on November 15, 2017 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 15, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J, Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.
570374/16

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Paulino Camacho, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered April 15, 2016, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the second degree and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Lyle E. Frank, J.), rendered April 15, 2016, affirmed.

The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15[1]), by alleging that defendant was observed inside "an apartment building where people reside [ ] sleeping on the third floor of the dwelling beyond the vestibule" and a posted "No Trespassing" sign; that defendant was not a tenant in that he "provided [an] address [ ] different" from the specified building; and that defendant was "not an invited guest in that [he] was unable to provide the identity of the resident of whom [he] was an invited guest" (see People v Barnes, 26 NY3d 986, 989 [2015]). These allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (People v Casey, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that the dwelling premises was "fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders" (Penal Law § 140.10 [a]; see People v Johnson, 13 Misc 3d 126[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51646[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 902 [2006]]; cf. People v Moore, 5 NY3d 725 [2005]) and that defendant knowingly entered or remained unlawfully therein (see Matter of Lonique M., 93 AD3d 203 [2012]; People v Bell, 54 Misc 3d 143[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50223[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1076 [2017]; People v Richardson, 49 Misc 3d 139[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51579[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1111 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: November 15, 2017