People v. Ocasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ocasio

253 A.D.2d 720, 678 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9768

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 720 (People v. Ocasio) 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. Ocasio, 253 A.D.2d 720, 678 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9768 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered March 14, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The Batson colloquy demonstrates that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the People’s peremptory challenge in question was motivated by a discriminatory intent (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325). The issue of whether a prima facie showing was made is not moot (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352, 359). Although the court did ask the People for an explanation of the challenge, and although the record is not always clear as to which Batson step was under consideration, a fair reading of the totality of the record establishes that the court did rule that there was no prima facie showing, and did not rule on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination (supra). In any event, we find that defendant’s present claims relating to the People’s response to the Batson application are unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered March 14, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The Batson colloquy demonstrates that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that the People’s peremptory challenge in question was motivated by a discriminatory intent (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325). The issue of whether a prima facie showing was made is not moot (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352, 359). Although the court did ask the People for an explanation of the challenge, and although the record is not always clear as to which Batson step was under consideration, a fair reading of the totality of the record establishes that the court did rule that there was no prima facie showing, and did not rule on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination (supra). In any event, we find that defendant’s present claims relating to the People’s response to the Batson application are unpreserved and without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 720, 678 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ocasio-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack