People v. Moise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moise

1 A.D.2d 464, 766 N.Y.S.2d 889

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Moise) 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. Moise, 1 A.D.2d 464, 766 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered December 12, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge to one of the prospective jurors was pretextual and should have been rejected by the trial court. However, a trial court’s conclusion that a facially race-neutral explanation is not pretextual should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 [1991]; People v Wilson, 278 AD2d 519 [2000]), and we find no basis on this record to disturb the finding of the trial court.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved [465]*465for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal of the judgment. Goldstein, J.E, Adams, Townes and Mastro, 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 (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered December 12, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenge to one of the prospective jurors was pretextual and should have been rejected by the trial court. However, a trial court’s conclusion that a facially race-neutral explanation is not pretextual should be accorded great deference on appeal (see Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 [1991]; People v Wilson, 278 AD2d 519 [2000]), and we find no basis on this record to disturb the finding of the trial court.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved [465]*465for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal of the judgment. Goldstein, J.E, Adams, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 464, 766 N.Y.S.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moise-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack