People v. Lerrelbouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lerrelbouse

287 A.D.2d 314, 731 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9621

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 14, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) was properly denied. Batson held that a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges cannot be based “solely on account of [potential jurors’] race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant.” (Id. at 89.) There is no proof in this record that the prosecutor used race as a criterion for the exercise of peremptory challenges. Defendant did not substantiate his charge of discrimination (People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d 1001, 1002-1003).

Further, appellate review of Batson objections requires preservation as mandated by CPL 470.05 (2) (People v Jones, 284 AD2d 46), and here, there was none.

Also, a rejection of the claim that use of a peremptory challenge was pretextual is entitled to great deference (People v Reyes, 274 AD2d 323, lv denied 95 NY2d 870).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 14, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) was properly denied. Batson held that a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges cannot be based “solely on account of [potential jurors’] race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant.” (Id. at 89.) There is no proof in this record that the prosecutor used race as a criterion for the exercise of peremptory challenges. Defendant did not substantiate his charge of discrimination (People v Jenkins, 84 NY2d 1001, 1002-1003).

Further, appellate review of Batson objections requires preservation as mandated by CPL 470.05 (2) (People v Jones, 284 AD2d 46), and here, there was none.

Also, a rejection of the claim that use of a peremptory challenge was pretextual is entitled to great deference (People v Reyes, 274 AD2d 323, lv denied 95 NY2d 870).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Wallach, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

People v. Lerrelbouse, 287 A.D.2d 314, 731 N.Y.S.2d 369, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

287 A.D.2d 314 (People v. Lerrelbouse) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related