People v. Chicco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chicco

19 A.D.3d 199, 796 N.Y.S.2d 358

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

DecidedJune 14, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 199 (People v. Chicco) 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. Chicco, 19 A.D.3d 199, 796 N.Y.S.2d 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 25, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years, seven years and 2Vs to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the People’s Batson application (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]). The record supports the court’s finding of pretext, which is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352, 356-357 [1991]). The court was not required to have the [200]*200People respond to defense counsel’s explanation for the challenge of the juror in question before making its ruling that the explanation was pretextual (People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 184 [1996]; People v Ciauri, 266 AD2d 164 [1999], affd sub nom. People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136 [2001]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s finding that counsel’s unexplained and unsupported generalization was a pretext for racial discrimination.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P, Andrias, Marlow, Sullivan and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered July 25, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years, seven years and 2Vs to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the People’s Batson application (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]). The record supports the court’s finding of pretext, which is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352, 356-357 [1991]). The court was not required to have the [200]*200People respond to defense counsel’s explanation for the challenge of the juror in question before making its ruling that the explanation was pretextual (People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 184 [1996]; People v Ciauri, 266 AD2d 164 [1999], affd sub nom. People v Besser, 96 NY2d 136 [2001]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s finding that counsel’s unexplained and unsupported generalization was a pretext for racial discrimination.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P, Andrias, Marlow, Sullivan and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 199, 796 N.Y.S.2d 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chicco-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack