People v. Mortimore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mortimore

280 A.D.2d 616, 720 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1681

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 20, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered April 14, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 10289/98, upon a jury verdict, and (2) two judgments of the same court, both also rendered April 14, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 11218/97 and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third [617]*617degree under Indictment No. 11058/97, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The prosecutor’s adoption of the court’s rationale for excusing a juror was not pretextual in light of the juror’s openly-expressed concern that she would be unable to serve without distraction, and the failure of the defense counsel to request explanations for the challenges exercised during the first two rounds of voir dire (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Figueroa, 276 AD2d 561).

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

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

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered April 14, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 10289/98, upon a jury verdict, and (2) two judgments of the same court, both also rendered April 14, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 11218/97 and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third [617]*617degree under Indictment No. 11058/97, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The prosecutor’s adoption of the court’s rationale for excusing a juror was not pretextual in light of the juror’s openly-expressed concern that she would be unable to serve without distraction, and the failure of the defense counsel to request explanations for the challenges exercised during the first two rounds of voir dire (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Figueroa, 276 AD2d 561).

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

People v. Mortimore, 280 A.D.2d 616, 720 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 616 (People v. Mortimore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related