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

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 616 (People v. Mortimore) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 616, 720 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mortimore-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack