People v. Deschamps

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Deschamps

256 A.D.2d 13, 680 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12786

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 1998·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered August 8, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror who allegedly displayed bias is unpreserved because defendant did not raise the same grounds asserted on appeal, and we reject defendant’s argument that he somehow alerted the court to his present claim. We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant has failed to demonstrate that the juror’s comments displayed any bias that would prevent him from discharging his responsibilities as a juror or require an expurgatory oath (see, People v Hernandez, 222 AD2d 696, lv denied 88 NY2d 879).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered August 8, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror who allegedly displayed bias is unpreserved because defendant did not raise the same grounds asserted on appeal, and we reject defendant’s argument that he somehow alerted the court to his present claim. We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant has failed to demonstrate that the juror’s comments displayed any bias that would prevent him from discharging his responsibilities as a juror or require an expurgatory oath (see, People v Hernandez, 222 AD2d 696, lv denied 88 NY2d 879).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

People v. Deschamps, 256 A.D.2d 13, 680 N.Y.S.2d 842, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 13 (People v. Deschamps) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related