People v. Middleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Middleton

280 A.D.2d 495, 719 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 495 (People v. Middleton) 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. Middleton, 280 A.D.2d 495, 719 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered August 6, 1996, as amended September 30, 1996 (Schneier, J.), convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal impersonation in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in denying his Batson challenges (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) to four peremptory challenges exercised by the prosecutor. The explanations given by the prosecutor were racially neutral (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 173; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101) and the defendant failed to establish that the explanations were pretextual (see, People v Scott, 267 AD2d 259; People v Walters, 248 AD2d 494).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio 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, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered August 6, 1996, as amended September 30, 1996 (Schneier, J.), convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal impersonation in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in denying his Batson challenges (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) to four peremptory challenges exercised by the prosecutor. The explanations given by the prosecutor were racially neutral (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 173; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101) and the defendant failed to establish that the explanations were pretextual (see, People v Scott, 267 AD2d 259; People v Walters, 248 AD2d 494).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 495, 719 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-middleton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack