People v. Collado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Collado

259 A.D.2d 626, 687 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2432

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 626 (People v. Collado) 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. Collado, 259 A.D.2d 626, 687 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered July 31, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal solicitation in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record in this [627]*627case does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). In his attempt to establish the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263), the defendant relied solely on the number of Hispanic jurors challenged. It is incumbent upon the party mounting a Batson challenge to “articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed” (People v Vidal, 212 AD2d 553, 554). In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, we find that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d 1001; People v Moría, 245 AD2d 468; People v Vidal, supra).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered July 31, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal solicitation in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record in this [627]*627case does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). In his attempt to establish the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263), the defendant relied solely on the number of Hispanic jurors challenged. It is incumbent upon the party mounting a Batson challenge to “articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed” (People v Vidal, 212 AD2d 553, 554). In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, we find that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d 1001; People v Moría, 245 AD2d 468; People v Vidal, supra).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 626, 687 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-collado-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack