People v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Edwards

193 A.D.2d 512, 598 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098

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

DecidedMay 20, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 512 (People v. Edwards) 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. Edwards, 193 A.D.2d 512, 598 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered January 15, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We disagree with defendant that he made a prima facie showing of discrimination in the People’s use of their peremptory challenges, and, even if he did, we agree with the trial court, whose determination in this regard is entitled to great deference (People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, affd 500 US 352, 111 S Ct 1859), that the People presented neutral, nonpretextual explanations for the challenges.

We have reviewed defendant’s argument that the sentence [513]*513is excessive and find it to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered January 15, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We disagree with defendant that he made a prima facie showing of discrimination in the People’s use of their peremptory challenges, and, even if he did, we agree with the trial court, whose determination in this regard is entitled to great deference (People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, affd 500 US 352, 111 S Ct 1859), that the People presented neutral, nonpretextual explanations for the challenges.

We have reviewed defendant’s argument that the sentence [513]*513is excessive and find it to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 512, 598 N.Y.S.2d 950, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edwards-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack