People v. Alvarado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alvarado

306 A.D.2d 18, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 18 (People v. Alvarado) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Alvarado, 306 A.D.2d 18, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Max Sayah, J.), rendered July 16, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, burglary in the first and third degrees and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application made pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The court correctly determined that even if the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason for challenging one panelist was the result of the prosecutor’s mistake in his recollection of the juror’s answers, this was an honest mistake and not a pretext for intentional discrimination (see People v Sanchez, 302 AD2d 282 [2003]). Defendant failed to carry his burden of demonstrating any [19]*19discriminatory intent, and the court’s factual determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]; see also Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 324 [2003]).

With regard to the other three panelists at issue, by failing, at step three of the Batson application, to raise any arguments as to why the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral explanations for his peremptory challenges were pretextual, defendant failed to preserve his present claims (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418 [2003]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In the circumstances presented, defendant’s unelaborated “exceptions” did not preserve his present claims or satisfy his step-three burden. In any event, the record supports the court’s findings (see People v Hernandez, supra). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Max Sayah, J.), rendered July 16, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, burglary in the first and third degrees and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application made pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The court correctly determined that even if the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason for challenging one panelist was the result of the prosecutor’s mistake in his recollection of the juror’s answers, this was an honest mistake and not a pretext for intentional discrimination (see People v Sanchez, 302 AD2d 282 [2003]). Defendant failed to carry his burden of demonstrating any [19]*19discriminatory intent, and the court’s factual determination is entitled to great deference on appeal (People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 356 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]; see also Miller-El v Cockrell, 537 US 322, 324 [2003]).

With regard to the other three panelists at issue, by failing, at step three of the Batson application, to raise any arguments as to why the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral explanations for his peremptory challenges were pretextual, defendant failed to preserve his present claims (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418 [2003]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In the circumstances presented, defendant’s unelaborated “exceptions” did not preserve his present claims or satisfy his step-three burden. In any event, the record supports the court’s findings (see People v Hernandez, supra). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 18, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alvarado-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack